No title

BIBLICAL ) ARCHEOLOGIST 1982 Volume 45 Number 2

Spring

Biblical/Palestinian Archeology: Retrospectsand Prospects

IN

THE

NEXT

BA

Inpointingoutscribalmistakesintheancientmanuscripts of the biblicaltext,modernscholarshaveoftenleftthe impression andincompetent. thatprofessionalcopyistswereirresponsible Ina fascinatingessay entitled"InPraiseof AncientScribes," AlanR. Millard revealssome ofthe proceduresand that safeguards wereemployedto ensurea faithfuland copy of ancientdocumentsandthesacredtext. trustworthy

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

65

BIBLICAL(.' ARCHEOLOGIST

James A. Sauer is Associate Curatorof Syro-PalestinianArchaeology at the University Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania,and former Director of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan. He is also the President-Electof ASOR. James F. Strangeis Professor of Religious Studies and Dean of the College of Arts and Letters of the University of South Florida. He is coauthor with Eric M. Meyers of Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianitypublished in 1981.

Editor DavidNoel Freedman AssociateEditor DavidF. Graf AssistantEditor MarshaD. Stuckey EditorialCommittee FrankM. Cross,Jr. TikvaFrymer-Kensky SharonHerbert CharlesR. Krahmalkov JohnA. Miles, Jr. WalterE. Rast

Larry E. Toombs, Professorof Religion and Culture at WilfredLaurierUniversity in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, who began his 26-year career in field archeology under the tutelage of Dame Kathleen M. Kenyon at Jericho, has participated in excavations at Balatah, CaesareaMaritima, and Tell el-Hesi. David Ussishkin is the Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and editor of the Institute'sjournal Tel Aviv. Since 1973, he has been directorof the excavations at Tel Lachish.

ProductionManager BruceE. Willoughby EditorialAssistants DavidM. Howard,Jr. TerrenceM. Kerestes

H. Darrell Lance is professorof Old Testament at Colgate Rochester/ Bexley/Crozer Theological Seminary.As a Guggenheim Fellow, he was annual professor at the Albright Institutein 1973-74. His book, The Old Testamentand the Archaeologist, appearedin 1981.

GraphicDesigner SuellenFeinberg SusanOgden DistributionManager R. Guy Gattis

William G. Dever, Chairmanof the Department of OrientalStudies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, was the Director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem and is the currenteditor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Biblical Archeologist (ISSN: 0006-0895) is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to provide the general reader with an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understandable account of archeological discoveries and their bearing on the biblical heritage. Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Address all editorial correspondence and advertising to Biblical Archeologist, 468 Lorch Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Address all business correspondence to ASOR, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139.

L. Y. Rahmani is Chief Curatorof State Antiquities with the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums in Jerusalemand author of numerous articleson the remains at Jerusalem from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Copyright 0 1982 American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual subscription rate: $16.00. Foreign subscription rate: $18.00 (American currency). Current single issues:

$5.00.

Second class postage paid at Cambridge, MA 02139. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Biblical Archeologist, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. Composition and printing by Printing Services, The University of Michigan.

66

Biblical Archeologistis published with the financial

assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a non-

sectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

Cover: left to right, top to bottom: David McCreery examining flints in the eastern desert of Jordan; Sharon Herbert at Tel Anafa; Jim Sauer at Ain Shellely in southern Jordan; Bill Dever; David Ussishkin at the 1981 Lachish excavations;Jim Strangeat Nabratein.

S; BBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

NAVY:

(BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST Spring 1982

Volume 45 Number 2

JamesA. Saner Prospectsfor Archeologyin Jordan and Syria JamesF. Strange New Developmentsin Greco-RomanArcheologyas a

Discipline

73

85

LarryE. Toombs The Developmentof PalestinianArcheologyas a Discipline 89 DavidUssishkin Where is Israeli ArcheologyGoing? H. DarrellLance American Biblical Archeologyin Perspective WilliamG. Dever

97

Retrospectsand Prospectsin BiblicalandSyro-Palestinian Archeology 103

L. Y. Rahmani Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs,

Part Four

DEPARTMENTS

93

109

Letterto the Readers

68

Polemicsand Irenics

69

Notesand News Pratico,Tellel-Kheleifeh McGovern,Baqah ValleyProject Betlyon, Joint Expeditionto Tellel-Hesi InternationalGlass Conference BookReviews.

120

126

Soggin, Judges (Boling)

Butterfield,Originsof History(Starr) Biran, Templesand High Places (Clifford)

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

67

-

Letter to

the

Readers 6

lum.~

"State-of-the-art." It is bold to claim that an account can be given of where a discipline stands at a particular timeas to theory, practice, and results. Nonetheless, this issue of BA comes close to being a presentation of the state-ofthe-art in an enterprise we have, for some time, been calling "biblical archeology." Here we publish the papers given at an ASOR symposium held 18 November 1978 in New Orleans. The symposium was planned by William G. Dever, editor of BA's sister publication, BASOR. Professor Dever has become in recent years the outspoken advocate of the "professionalization" of biblical archeology. He sees that as requiring, among other things, a shift from viewing biblical archeology as an academic discipline to seeing it as a cross-disciplinary activity, while the academic discipline emerges as "Syro-Palestinian archeology." Such a shift relieves archeology in that region of an embarrassment-that of appearing to be motivated by concerns of a particular faith-tradition rather than by a broadly humanistic impulse. If you are wondering what the fuss is all about, the spirited encounter between Dever and Professor H. Darrell Lance contained in their contributions to the symposium will tickle your mind. These two, however, are not the only ones who address that issue here. Although Dever claims that the problem is a purely American one, Professor David Ussishkin indicates that archeologists in modern Israel are very much involved in it. In describing the motivation of his Israeli colleagues, Ussishkin notes a disagreement with Professor Lawrence Toombs' paper: Toombs' study of archeological method could apply to archeology anywhere. Toombs agrees. He portrays a discipline come of age in the realm of technique, and that is an important gain. Sophistication in method nowadays demands cooperation among members of a team, each contributing expertise while staying sufficiently knowledgeable of other facets of modern archeological technique so that joint effort produces a sound synthesis. Several of our authors speak about teamwork and diffusion of leadership and the consequences.

68

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

Sophistication of method is one thing. Toward the end of his life, G. Ernest Wright, BA's founder and long-time editor, used to speak of two deficiencies characterizing archeology in the Near East: deficiency in field technique and deficiency in curiosity. The imaginations of archeologists needed prodding to get them to ask all manner of new questions. Professor James Strange tackles this aspect of archeology most explicitly, though all our authors at least touch on it. Strange calls for a body of theory to go with practice. Prodded particularly by anthropologists, he gives illustrations of new possibilities pertaining to Palestine in Greco-Roman times. You will find yourself musing as you read: "Say, I never thought of that before." The rapid pace of recent discovery is frequently mentioned by all our authors, but it is Professor James Sauer's paper that focuses on it. His portrait of archeological activity and potential in Syria and Jordan is quite simply the best and most up-to-date available anywhere. Sauer assumes that our interests extend backward to prehistoric times and forward to the 16th century A.D.He reminds us that for all our necessary reflection on our methods and theories, discovery remains exhilarating and goes on challenging our limits. A final thought. Lance at one point suggests the presence on any archeological staff of a person whose primary job it is to interpret what is found for biblical scholars. I picture such a person also playing the role of reminding his colleagues on the dig that the peoples whose homes and streets and fortifications and government buildings and sanctuaries and garbage dumps they are exploring really lived, thought, hoped, and believed. There is a reciprocity of influence here; the academic world needs to encounter biblical scholarship about as much as, if not more than, biblical scholarship needs to encounter other academic disciplines. I am never quite sure which is the more negligent here! In any case, the need for serious interpretation of archeology for biblical studies was never more pressing; may BA go on making its unique contribution to the dialogue.

Eg4w-x 1 Camp-aL

Polemics&

Irenlcs Gilgameshand the Magic Plant Writing for the general reader surely implies cautious adherenceto fact and specific markingof theory as theory, while in writing for scholars one is free to indulge in less cautiousspeculation,since they can (or should)be able to sift truth from unprovenideas. In this light RonaldA. Veenker's article"Gilgameshandthe MagicPlant"(BA 44.4 [1981]:199205) leavessomethingto be desired.First,whatis statedas fact is not alwaysso. At the outset he states that the eleven-tablet Akkadianversionof Gilgameshis basedon "severalindependentSumerianstories,"of whichhe givesfivetitles, butthenhe adds that "a Semitic author ... addedto elementsof the six Sumeriantales otherlegendarymaterial... ." Is it five or six? In fact it is two. Nothing of The Death of Gilgameshor Gilgamesh,Enkidu,and the Netherworldappearsin the eleventabletAkkadianversion,and the accountof the flood in Tablet IX was almostcertainlytaken from the AkkadianA tra-hasis story ratherthan from the very differentand much shorter Sumerianflood story. Then, his translationof Tablet XI 280 has an unexplainedgap. As a readerof cuneiformhe should have filled this gap from CuneiformTextsfrom Babylonian Tabletsin the BritishMuseum,Part 46 pl. 36: lu ia-killi-baam-masam-malul-tuk,"I shall feed it to an old man and try out the plant." The chartwith the caption"TheWorldof Gilgamesh"on p. 200 is a highlyspeculativemodernconstruction,basedlargely on a generalBabylonianworldmap of the first millennium B.C.(It placesUrartunextto Assyria.)Butthe Babylonianmap knowsnothingof any paradise,and I knowof no evidencethat Sumeriansor Babyloniansever conceivedof a paradiseat the middleof the world.This is a modernidea. Also, contraryto the captionto the seal impressionon p. 203, I submitthat there is no proof that this hero known from art was taken as Gilgameshbefore the second millenniumB.c., that is, some hundreds of years after this particularseal was cut. In Sumerianart this motif goes back so far as to exclude Gilgamesh at the earliest occurrences. It is pure speculation whetherin the Akkad periodthis traditionalmotif represents Gilgameshor not. A second-millenniumexample would not have been open to the same doubt. I can agreewith part of the main pointof the articlethat the story of the magic plant is not taken over from the SumerianGilgameshstories, but in the text the episodeis explicitlyan explanationof how the snakeacquiredthe powerto shed its skin, and so to experiencerejuvenation.It has nothing to do withthe long-livedSumeriankingsin the SumerianKing List, except in modernspeculation.By the time of Gilgamesh theirreignsarealmostdownto whatwe wouldconsidernormal. In the storyGilgameshhadthedisappointment of failingto find the key to eternallife, so as a consolationprize he was told aboutthis magicplant,by whichhe hopedto rejuvenatehimself in his old age and so obtain a secondlife. But even this hope provedvainwhenthe snakeswallowedthe plantat a well.Thus, Gilgameshdid not in fact returnto Urukwiththe plant,and it

is modern,not ancient,legendthatthis planthasanythingto do with longevityof Sumerianheroes. W. G. Lambert Universityof Birmingham England A Responseto W. G. Lambert It appears indeed that in editing the portion on the literary history of the epic for the BA readership, I have sacrificed

precision for brevity. However, I intended to refer to five, not six, Sumerian stories. I am grateful for Professor

Lambertfurnishing the reference to CT 46 35 (plate 36) which is available in the CAD L 11lb. Since he refers to my translationof XI 280, 1 call attention to the fact that I have used throughoutthe article E. A. Speiser's translation from ANET with the exception of XI 94-95 on page 205, which appeared in print before the publication of Lambertand Millard'sCT 46 in 1965. The "highly speculative" map of Gilgamesh's world illustration is nothing more than an ornament and is not meant to be scientifically illustrative of anything in the essay itself. Indeed, all of the artwork is intended in that spirit.

The largerportion of Lambert'sresponseis addressed to editing and artwork.Only in his last paragraphdoes he refer to the body of the article. I find it difficult to accept Lambert'ssuggestionthat the entire episode of "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" was told primarily to provide an explanation for snakes shedding their skins. Furthermore, if Lambert is suggestingthat my thesis is dependent upon the historical Gilgamesh having returned to Uruk and actuallycultivatedthe plant, I would have difficultyrelating that to what I proposed in the article. As I made clear previously, the thesis pertains to an independent story, reconstructed from elements of the Gilgamesh version, which served as popular lore to answer the question in the minds of any Mesopotamianswho had ever heard of the long-lived Sumeriankings: "How could they have lived so long?" Ronald A. Veenker Ronald Veenker Western WesternKentucky Kentucky University University KY Green, KY Bowling Green, Bowling Pivots and Pilates Filas' description of the placement of the Pontius Pilate coins on the Turin Shroud (BA 44.3 [1981]: 135) is very confusing and in need of further explanation, particularly

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

69

Fig. 1 .

. ,-

--or

tfook)\

to

.f

itt .

•,"

'r -'. •"."~~v

-

?-'!;:•.' ...., .. .....

. . . ...

--,.... ..

,

,. ..-,.

.•

.

,..,;.....•

. ..

.. , • .. -!. ...,.

2

iFig. '

?z I?.!,,;cr. ..... ...

N

., '

"

... ':"

2i

N '

"Fig

Fig. 1. On the left is the actual corpse and coin; to the right is the imprinton the shroudif this was the case. Fig. 2. To the right is the negative impressionof the Shroud image; on the left is the imprint as a flopped double negative.

Fig. 3 since it is the right eye of the human image that he is describing. First, the corpus in situ (facing us) would have this coin on his right eye, but it appears on the left hand side of his photo. Second, the shroud, lifted and facing us, after being affected by whatever mysterious forces acted upon it, should have received,in positive form, a darkening of the high portionsof the body; the coin and its inscription would be seen in black on white, but with the lettering in reverse(the right eye on the left hand side). Third, a negative of this impressionshould come out in one of two ways: eithera white inscriptionon a darkcoin with the right hand eye in reverse(fig. 1) or a white inscription(readingleft to right) of this coin with the eye on the left hand side as a "floppednegative"(fig. 2). The photos in his article show the oppositesituation. Moreover,I wonder if Filas has taken into consideration the thickness of the coin. Unlike our present thin coins, the Roman one, particularlyof the crude variety he describes, would be thick enough to create a situation where either the coin was pushed deeply into the eyeball (highly unlikely) or the position of the shroud is misrepresented (fig. 3). The contours around the eyes could not possibly show up properly with a thick coin acting as a protuberanceabove the eyeball, even with the softest cloth. Only the coin would show, in fairly sharp outline, with very little of the hollow near the nose bridge of the other eye. Sam Fischer Houston, Texas

70

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

NUMISMATICS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES: A RESPONSE It must be conceded that Fischer's remarks legitimately concern one point: the confusion about the rights and lefts of photographic positives and negatives ofi the Shroud of Turin. That confusion arose simply because the photograph in BA (44.3 [1981]: 136) was accidently "flopped" so that the encircled eye was improperly reversed.

FrancisL. Filas, S.J. Loyola Universityof Chicago Atlas Addendum I am most grateful to David Graf for his exceedinglykind addition to my review article of biblical atlases, but I fear that in the matter of the Reader'sDigest Atlas of the Bible he is giving me a great deal more credit than I actually deserve. The Consultants for this project were exactlywhat the word implies: we were consulted.We were, in fact, rather like the Queen in Britain. We could advise and warn, but not govern. My own contributionwas modest. The base map for all the historicalmaps had alreadybeen decided upon before I came upon the scene. Tom Frank and I did work closely together on the identificationof sites, the routes, and geographical questions in the text, but everythingwas subject to subsequentediting. Many of the maps I saw only in their preliminaryform and some, indeed, not at all, because, as the result of a delay in the completion of the project, I had gone back to Jordan on sabbatical leave before some of the material was even in its first draft. The first 49 pages of the Atlas were written last and I was therefore unable to comment on the maps in that section. The Atlas is a sumptuous and beautifully illustrated volume, but I confess to being not altogether

happy about some of the cartography.I would not have written this rejoinderexcept that I do not want readers of the BA to get, accidentally, a false impression. Denis Baly Kenyon College Gambier,OH

A Wordof Appreciation The publications of the ASOR continue to be a source of endless fascinationand enrichment! Lydia and CharltonHeston BeverlyHills, CA

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

71

NEW

FROM

PUBLICATIONS ASOR

Annual of ASOR 45-The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 By Nancy L. Lapp and others

The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery:A PreliminaryReport on the Manuscripts By James H. Charlesworth

This volume is the report of excavations at Tell el-Ful and the 1964 campaign in particular. In addition to the discussions on the pottery, architecture, and artifacts, the historical importance of Tell el-Ful, identified as Gibeah of Saul, is analyzed throughout all its occupations, but most importantly during the time of the Philistine settlement and expansion. 313 pp., 35 figures,

The discovery in 1975 of a massive hoard of ancient manuscripts at St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai did not come to public attention until 1977 and still remains largely surrounded by secrecy and confusion. Presented here are the first photographs of some of the recent discoveries, along with a collection of previously published information about the discovery and a further update. xv + 45 pp.; 7 plates. ASOR Monograph Series, No. 3.

81 plates, 14 plans.

List Cloth $25.00 ASOR Members'Discount

List Paper $6.00 ASOR Members' Discount $4.80

$20.00 Annual of ASOR 46The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition:An InterimReportof the 1977 Season By WalterE. Rast and R. ThomasSchaub The initial findings of the excavations in the Southeastern Dead Sea Plain, particularly at Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira. The book is divided into three main sections: Settlements, Burials, and Environment and Region. It is hoped that this volume is just the beginning of further research concerning the Cities of the Plain. 190 pp., 119 figures.

List Cloth $25.00 ASOR Members' Discount

$20.00

To

Order:

Send your order and payment to Eisenbrauns P.O.B. 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 USA Master Card and Visa are accepted; please supply your card number and the expiration date. Please add shipping charges to your payment as follows: Order total

Shipping Charge

United States $0.00 - $15.00 $15.00 - $25.00 $25.00 - up

Minimum: $1.50 10% of order total 5% of order total

Foreign (including Canada) $0.00 - $20.00 $20.00 - up

72

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

Minimum: $2.00 10% of order total

prospects

for

archeologyin

& JORDAN SYRIA James A. Sauer

Geographical Background

Geographically,Jordan (East Bank) andSyriatogethercomprisenearly90% of the area which is usuallyincludedin the term "Syro-Palestinian Archeology." Jordan. In the south, Jordan touches the Gulf of Aqabah,the main outlet to the Red Sea. From Aqabah, the deep rift valley runs norththrough the Wadi Arabahto the Dead Sea, at ca. 394 m below sea level. Betweenthe Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, the Jordan River meanderssouth through the JordanValleyportionof the rift.To the east of the rift are the hills Jordan and Syria, which together whichrise sharplytovalley ca. 600-1500+ m comprisea very large percentage abovesea level, formingthe edgeof the Jordan. This of the area of Syria-Palestine, high plateau area of to plateauslopes gradually the east, to have rich archeological histories the Azraqoasis andthe WadiSirhan,at which include the Paleolithic- ca. 500 m abovesea level. The western Neolithic periods, the Bronze- hilly region along the edge of the plateautoday receivesadequateannual Iron Ages, the Classical periods, rainfall(ca. 200-500 mm), and several and the Islamic periods. Many rivers, includingthe Yarmuk, Zerqa, countries are participatingin the Mojib, and Hesa, cut into the plateau and flow westwardinto the rift valley. recoveryof this history, and the The sloping eastern plateau today new evidence that is coming from receivesfar less rainfall(ca. 200 mm or this research is of great less) and is a steppe-desertregion, but the numerousdry lakes and riverbeds significance for many problems in the region indicate that it received of Syro-Palestinianarcheology. more rainfall during the prehistoric

periods. In the northeast corner of Jordan is a basalt and lava-covered regionwhichis an extensionintoJordan of the volcanic region around Jebel in southern Druze, Syria. Geographically,Jordan has links with Arabiato the south,with Palestineand ultimatelyEgypt to the west, and with Syria to the north. Syria. Southern Syria up to Damascusis closely relatedto Jordan. To the east is the volcanic region of Jebel Druze, at ca. 1800 m above sea level, and to the west is Mt. Hermon and the Anti-Lebanonmountainrange, at ca. 2800m. The low Qalamunmountain rangecuts off Damascusfromthe regions in northernSyria. Includedin the north are the regions of Homs, Hama,the Ghab,and the Rouj,located along the northward-flowingOrontes River, and the northernplateauregion around Aleppo. To the west is the Nuseiriyahmountainrange,at ca. 1500 m, beyondwhichlies the narrowcoastal region.The coast is connectedto the interiorof Syriaby two maingaps, one in the south nearTartous-Homs,and one in the north near Latakia.To the east and southeastof Aleppois the regionof the Euphrates River, which runs southeastthroughthe fairlyflat plateau at ca. 350-200 m. To the east of the Euphratesis the region of the Jezireh,

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

73

34'45'

35 15

3500'

3530'

35"45,

36"00"

36'15"

36 30'

36"45

37"00'

37"15'

37"30'

37*45

38"00

3615 "

3830

38*45"

3 15'

39 00

39 30

333033'30'

3315 33"15"

.

_____33"00

...._0___

_3245

45

3 47 IRBIO RAMTHA __ER-

_32___'30_

EL-MAFRAQ

3 3AJLS -

__l5

57FASH

5 ?*60

20-

3f9

45'_____32_13

5 ,59

27 61

DEIR0LLA2023

e

129124 126 152f

5

62

54 "335L

is"

2

13

____16_1_ 7

3215

2 30

_

_

56 312115

1

0_a____

5013960A70 ETST.LlTAH ELKHARAH

98199*20

_

I(

ZE•

30

4

.b•,R

103

Vi00'36 107

37 109

03 39

1

3o

39o"

AS,

ms

re

a

110

5 4'o

35 35'0

0011RHOLGCL Z0

300

0 6

0

0

5 00 3

SIE

A. 5 39003 JA0 NJ

RD

(ES

Site List 1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 10 11la 11lb 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20a 20b 21a 21b 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Jisr el-Majami Tell esh-ShunahNorth Tell el-Mintar Tell Abu Bisseh Abu Urabi Tell es-Sukkar Tell Baajawiyah TabaqatFahl (Pella) Tell el-Husn (Pella) Tell el-Hayyat Tell Abu en-Niaj North Tell el-Maajajeh Tell Abu el-Kharaz Tell el-Meqbereh Tell Sherhabil Tell Abu Habil North es-SleikhatMilestones Araq Abu ez-Zeit Tell es-Saidiyeh Tell Ammata Tell el-Mazar Tell el-Kharabeh Tell Deir Alla Tell Abu Qadan Tell Alla/ Tell el-HandaquqSouth Zeazeiyeh Qataretes-Samra QatarTell Zakari Mhith Dhra el-Heseini Tell Damiyah Damiyah Dolmen Field el-Ghrubbah er-RashidiyehWest Tell er-Rameh Tell Iktanwah Ketif es-Safi Wadi el-Malih Teleilat el-Ghassul Bab edh-Dhra es-Safi Khaneizir et-Telah Khirbeten-Nahas el-Fidan Feinan (Punon) Bir Madhkur el-Aqabah Umm Qeis (Gadara) Quweilbeh Arqub ez-Zahr Beit Ras (Capitolias) Irbid

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88a 88b 89 90 91 92 93 94 95a 95b 96 97 98

Kufr Yuba Dolmen Field Tell el-Husn Tell er-Rumeith el-Khanasiri Umm el-Jimal Qalat er-Rabad Mugharatel-Wardeh Jerash(Gerasa) Abu es-Suwwan Rihab Tell Jenabeh Tell edh-DhahabWest Rujm el-Henu Tell Safut Tell Siran Umm er-Rujum Yajuz Qasren-Nuweijis Rujm el-Mukheizin Amman Airport"Temple" Qasr Mheis Abu Alandah Sahab el-Meqabelein Amman (Rabbahof the Ammonites;Philadelphia) Rujm el-Malfuf North Khilda Rujm el-Kursi el-Bassah Araq el-Emir Khirbetel-Hajjar Khirbetal-Al (Elealeh) Tell Hesban (Heshbon;Esbus) Masuh Jalul Madeba(Medeba) Siyaghah(Mt. Nebo) Khirbetel-Mekhayyat(Nebo) Main (Baal-meon) el-Meshneqeh(Machaerus) Mukawir(Machaerus) KhirbetIskander Khirbetel-MedeiyinehThemed Dhiban (Dibon) Umm er-Risas Arair (Aroer) el-Lahun Mehattetel-Hajj Lower Mehattetel-Hajj Upper Shihan el-Balu el-Qasr

99 100 101a 101b 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114a 114b 115a 115b 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130a 130b 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138a 138b 139 140 141 142 143

Khirbetel-MedeiyinehNorth Khirbetel-MedeiyinehSouth el-Lejjun el-LejjunCamp Ader KhirbetMedeibi el-Kerak(Kir-hareseth) el-Mashhad Dhat Ras Khirbetet-Tannur et-Tafileh Buseira(Bozrah) esh-Shobak Udhruh el-Beidah Tawilan Petra Umm el-Biyarah Wadi Ramm Temple Wadi Ramm Sanctuary Ayn Abu Nekheileh el-Judeidah KhirbetRizqeh Qasr Burqu Qa Abu el-Husein Jawa Qa KhannaKite el-Qaryatein Qa Khanna Hammanes-Sarakh Qasr el-Hallabat Qasrel-Azraq Ayn el-Asad QuseirAmrah Qasrel-Kharaneh el-Kharaneh Qasr el-Meshatta el-Qastel el-Jizeh QasrDabah Khan ez-Zebib Qasr Bashir Qasrel-Qatranah Wadi ed-Dabi Wadi ed-Dabi Dam Qasr et-Tubah Qalat el-Hesa Bayir el-Jafr Kilwah

(Locations of the sites are according to precise map coordinates,but the road system is only approximate.) BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

75

through which flow the Balikh and Khabur Rivers, tributaries of the Euphrates. Rainfall in all of these regionstoday rangesfrom ca. 200 mm to ca. 1000 mm, while in the steppedesertregionsof centralSyria it drops to below200 mm. The Palmyradepression, with its low mountains to the north and south, is on the edge of the regionwithadequaterainfall(200 mm). Geographically,Syria has connections with Jordan,Palestine,and ultimately Arabiaand Egyptto the south,withthe Lebanon mountain range, Mediterranean coast, Cyprus,and the Aegean to the west, with Anatolia to the north, and withthe heartof Mesopotamiaand Persia to the east and southeast.

Dynastic Mesopotamia (especially Sumer). Pottery in Jordan was still largely handmade, while in northern and easternSyria wheelmadepotteryis now attested.It is duringthese periods that the first full writing systems appearedin Egypt and Mesopotamia. Numerous settlements existed in Jordan during the EB IV period (ca. 2350-1950 B.C), and pottery was hand-

wheelmade.These settlementswerelittle influenced by Egypt, which was weakened during the First Intermediate (ca. Dynasties 6-11) period. They were rather most closely linked with northernSyria, where the great site of Tell Mardikh(Ebla) served as the capitalof a largestate, the archives of which are just now being published. The rivalto Ebla in Mesopotamiawas HistoricalOutline Jordanand Syria have extremelyrich, the Dynasty of Akkad, and following that dynastywere the Guti and Ur III long, and interrelated archeological periods. histories. Duringthe MiddleBronzeAge (ca. Jordan and Syria. During the Paleolithic (pre- 14,000 B.C.), Epi- 1950-1550 B.C), new sites were founded Paleolithic (ca. 14,000-8000 B.C.), and in northJordanand the JordanValley. Early Neolithic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.) Wheelmadepottery and bronze were

so far known.Duringthe Late Bronze Age, Jordanwas in the Egyptiansphere of influence,since Egypt had revived under the strong 18th and 19th Dynasties(New Kingdom).Egyptalso usually dominated the seacoast of Syria-Lebanon,wheremost of the major LB sites are located. Among these sites is Ras Shamra (Ugarit), the famous tablets of which documentthe language,religion,and generalculture of the period.FewerLB sites are found in the interiorof north Syria(e.g., Tell Nebi Mend [Qadesh]), a regionwhich was disputedby Egypt,the Hittites,and Mitanni.In Mesopotamia,the Kassites and Assyriansdid not usually become involvedin the affairs of Syria-Palestine duringthe Late BronzeAge. At the end of the Late Bronze Age, Mitanni had disappeared,the Hittite Empire was destroyed, the Kassites were defeated, and Egypt was in a state of relativedecline.Most of the majorLB sites alongthe coast of Syria,in Jordan, and in Palestine were destroyed or abandoned. Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt (Dynasties20-21)all remainedbasically weakduringthe Iron I period(ca. 1200-

introduced, and flint artifacts now become rare. Major cities developed, with city walls, and ultimately with sloping glacis installations. In north 918 B.C.).During Iron IA-B (ca. 1200Syria, numerouslarge tells from the 1000 B.C.),when international imports period, some of which are surrounded declinedand wheniron was introduced by enormousramparts,are to be found, alongsidebronze,two basicculturesare especially in the central region from attestedin Jordan.The first, Iron IA, Homs to Aleppo. This is the periodof consists of small- and medium-sized the Amorites,whosepresenceis well at- sites with a relatively poor physical testedin the archivesof Mari.Relations culture,includingpillaredhousesand a werestrongestbetweenNorth Syriaand crude,usuallyundecoratedpottery.It is the otherdominantlyAmoritedynasties concentrated in the hill country of in Mesopotamia(Isin, Larsa, Assyria, Jordanand in the southJordanValley, and Chalcolithic (ca. 4250-3300 B.c.) Babylon).DuringMB I (ca. 1950-1750 and it probably represents Israelite, periods.The occupationalsites are now B.C.),the revived 12th Dynasty of Egypt Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite confinedprimarilyto the fertilecrescent (Middle Kingdom)also played a role, occupations.In Palestine,similarIron proper,especiallythe JordanValley in especiallyin coastal Syria, and perhaps IA remainsare well known,especially Jordan,andthe OrontesValley,the sea- in Jordan.DuringMB II-III (ca. 1750- from the hill country.The secondbasic coast, andthe BalikhandupperKhabur 1550 B.C.),Egypt declined again during culture,Iron IB, consistsof largersites regionsin Syria. From now on, the in- the Second Intermediate period with a more sophisticated physical

periods, the stone artifacts made by man are to be foundthroughoutJordan and Syria.Theyare commonin the hilly regions, along rivers,and also near the dry lakesandriverbedsin the desert regions, which indicates that a more favorableclimate existed duringthose periods.In the Early Neolithic period, large prepotteryvillages with impressive domestic architectureare well attested in both Jordanand Syria. Handmadepottery and then copper were introducedduringthe Middle and Late Neolithic(ca. 6000-4250B.C.)

terior desert regions are seldom occupied, due in part at least, to the climatic factors which produced the steppe-desert. During EB I (ca. 3300-2950 B.c.) and EB II-III (ca. 2950-2350 B.C.),the fortified cities which developed in Jordan and along the seacoast in SyriaLebanon were closely related to Predynastic and Early Dynastic-Old Kingdom Egypt (Dynasties 1-5). Northern and eastern Syria were more closely linked with Protoliterate and Early

(Dynasties 13-17) and was ultimately culture, including public structures, dominated by the enigmatic Hyksos. smelting installations, and pottery that During the Late Bronze Age (ca. is often painted in multiple parallel 1550-1200 B.C.), major Canaanite and lines, nets, semicircles, and birds. It is Amorite cities existed in north Jordan found in the north Jordan Valley, and it and the Jordan Valley. The inter- probably represents a Sea Peoples or national character of the period can be "Philistine" occupation, connected to seen from the numerous artifacts which the coastal heart of Philistia by the were imported from all over the eastern Plain of Esdraelon. In Syria, material Mediterranean. The inscribed tablets similar to the Iron IA of Jordan has not from Tell Deir Alla, apparently from yet been found. However, along the seathe very end of the period, are the coast of Syria and inland as far as earliest literary evidence from Jordan Hama there is an Iron IB occupation

76

1982

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

with painted pottery, which probably representsthe Sea Peoples. It would seem clear that the LB sites along coastal Syriaweredestroyedby the Sea Peoples of Iron IB. In Jordan and Palestine,there is evidencefor arguing that many LB sites weredestroyedand replaced by Iron IA occupations, althoughat some sites (especiallyalong the coast), the LB occupations may havebeensucceededdirectlyby Iron IB occupations.Iron IA-B correspondsto the biblicalperiod of the Judges. During Iron IC (ca. 1000-918 B.C.),

the UnitedIsraeliteMonarchyof David and Solomon, based in Jerusalem, dominated Jordan (Ammon, Moab, Edom) and southernSyria (Aramean). Along the coast of Syria-Lebanonwere the Phoenicians, and in the interior regions of north Syria were the ArameansandNeo-Hittites.One of the distinctivefeaturesof this periodis a fine red-slippedand burnishedpottery. The breakup of the United Monarchyinto Judahand Israelin 922 B.C.and the invasionof Shishakin 918

and Phoenicianregionswere absorbed into the Persian Empire. Aramaic became the dominantlanguageof the empire, and coinage began to be used fairly extensively. Towardthe end of the 4th century, Alexanderthe Great conqueredSyriaPalestine, Egypt, and the rest of the PersianEmpire.Duringthe Hellenistic period (ca 332-63 B.C.), numerous

Greek cities were founded,and Greek became a major language alongside Aramaic. Followingthe death of Alexander, Syria became the center of the Seleucid state, and Egypt became the focal point of the Ptolemaic state. Jordanand Palestineweredisputed,but they were dominantlyin the Ptolemaic sphere during most of the Early Hellenistic period (ca. 301-198 B.C.), and

dominantlyin the Seleucidsphereduring the Late Hellenisticperiod(ca. 19863 B.C.).In Palestine, the Jewish state

became independentafter the Hasmonean revolt of ca. 167 B.C., and sub-

sequently parts of Jordan were taken from the Greeks as well. In Jordan, B.C. gave the Ammonites, Moabites, numerous Greek cities had been esand Edomitesof Jordanintermittentin- tablished, especially in the north, but dependenceduring the Iron II period the Arabic-speakingNabateans main(ca. 918-539 B.C.). In Syria, the tained their independencein the south, Arameansand Neo-Hittitesflourished, with Petra as their capital. In central and along the coast of Syria-Lebanon, Syria, Palmyraalso was growingin imthe Phoeniciansexpandedby means of portanceduringthis period.To the east, coloniesthroughoutthe Mediterranean. the Parthiansof Iran eventuallytook During Iron IIA (918-721 B.C.)and Iron most of Mesopotamia,includingparts IIB (721-605 B.C.), Assyria was the of easternSyria. dominant major power in the Near The Romans conquered SyriaEast, and the small states of Syria- Palestine in 64-63 B.C.,and the Roman Palestinewereoften vassalsof Assyria. provinceof Syria was created at that Revolts against Assyria occurredfre- time. Duringmuchof the EarlyRoman quently,such as the one whichbrought period (63 B.C.-A.D.135), which includes on the destructionof SamariaandNorth the New Testament period, the semiIsrael in 721 B.C.From 605 to 539 B.C., independentJewish state in Jerusalem the Iron IIC period, Neo-Assyrian had control over parts of Jordan. hegemony was replaced by Neo- Ultimately, the Jews were crushedby Babylonian, and during that time Rome duringthe First(ca. A.D.70) and Jerusalemwas destroyedandJudahex- Second (ca. A.D. 135) Revolts. The

iled (587 B.C). Throughout most of the Iron II period, Egypt (Dynasties 22-26) was a weaker but still significant rival to Assyria-Babylonia. The Persians inherited the Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C., and during most of the Persian period (539-332 B.C.), Egypt was incorporated in the Persian Empire. The Jews returned from exile to set up their state in Jerusalem, while central Jordan was under the control of the Ammonite-Jewish Tobiads. In Syria, the former Aramean

Nabateans of southern Jordan remained totally independent of Rome until A.D. 106, when their kingdom was annexed and included in the new Roman province of Arabia. In northern Jordan and southern Syria, the GrecoRoman cities of the Decapolis flourished during the Early (63 B.C.-A.D. 135) and Late (A.D. 135-324) Roman periods. This was also true of most of Syria, including Palmyra until her unsuccessful bid for independence in ca. A.D. 273. During the Roman period,

Latin appearedas another significant language,butit neverreplacedGreekas the dominanttongue.The Romansbuilt manyroads,andtheyalso constructeda defensivelimessystemalongthe edgeof the desert in Jordan and Syria. In the interiorsteppe-desertregions were the pre-Islamic Arabic tribes, whose Safaitic and Thamudic inscriptions have been left behind.In Mesopotamia and eastern Syria, the Parthiansand then the SassanianPersiansremaineda constantthreat to Roman authorityin Syria-Palestine. In A.D.324, ConstantineI founded Constantinople, and the Byzantine period can be said to have begun. ChristianitygraduallyreplacedRoman "paganism"as the dominantreligion, but otherwisethe same basic culture continued to flourish. Numerous churches were constructedin Jordan and Syria, and Greek remained the dominantlanguage.The SassanianPersiansof MesopotamiaandeasternSyria constituted the major external threat duringthe period. However,it was to the Arabsof Arabia,recentlyconverted to Islam,that Syria-Palestine(andPersia) ultimately fell in A.D. 630 and thereafter. After the Arab conquestof SyriaPalestine,the Umayyadsof Damascus ruledthe IslamicworldfromA.D.661 to A.D.750. JordanandSyriacontinuedto prosperduringthis period,whenArabic replaced Greek and Islam replaced Christianity.The majorcitiesin Jordan and Syriacontinuedto be occupied,but by the end of the period, most of the churcheshadgone out of existence.The Umayyadsconstructedresidencesin the interiordesertregions,but the RomanByzantine limes system, no longer needed,was largelyabandoned. A majorearthquakerockedJordan in A.D.747, and the Umayyads were defeated in battle by the Abbasidsin A.D. 750. From A.D. 750 to A.D. 969, Jordan and Syria were usually under the control of the Abbasid dynasty, based in Iraq. This was a period of decline for Jordan and southern Syria, regions which were no longer in the heart of the Islamic world. For northern and eastern Syria, however, it was a period of great prosperity, because these regions were close to Iraq. In A.D. 969, the Fatimids conquered Egypt, while the Abbasids remained in power in Iraq. From A.D.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

77

969 to A.D.1071,JordanandSyriawere often disputed by these two Islamic powers.Jordan,however,was still very much in decline. In A.D.1071,Seljuq-Zengidforces joined the Abbasiddynastyin Iraqand Syria-Palestine, while the Fatimids remainedindependentin Egypt.The invading Crusadersdefeatedthe SeljuqZengidsandthe Fatimidsca. A.D.1097, and they establishedtheir states along the coast of Syria-Lebanon, in Palestine, and in southernJordan. In ca. A.D. 1174, the Ayyubid leader Saladin united a large part of the Islamic world by taking control of Egypt (from the Fatimids)and Syria (from the Seljuq-Zengids).He then defeatedthe Crusadersin A.D.1187,and the Crusader kingdom was confined primarilyto the seacoast area. During the Ayyubid period (ca. A.D. 11741263),JordanandSyriaprosperedonce again. In A.D. 1258-60, the Mongols

invaded Iraq and destroyedthe remnants of the Abbasid dynasty. They also pillaged northern Syria and inuntilthey were vadedJordan-Palestine, defeatedby the Mamluks of Egypt in A.D. 1260. The Mamluksreplacedthe Ayyubids as the dominant Islamic power from ca. A.D. 1260 to A.D. 1516.

They finally expelled the Crusaders totally in A.D.1291. Jordanand Syria continuedto thriveunderthe Mamluks until ca. A.D. 1401, when Tamerlane invaded and devastated Syria-Palestine, only to withdrawagain. The weakened Mamluks were defeatedby the OttomanTurksin A.D. 1516. Duringthe Ottoman period(ca. A.D. 1516-1918),Jordan continuedto decline, and village life was replaced largely by bedouin activities. Syria faredsomewhatbetterbut was also in a state of relativedecline. The Ottoman Turkswere expelledfrom Syria-Palestine during World War I (ca. 1918), and since that time the modern states of Jordan and Syria have been forming and experiencing a renaissance of cultural development.

rapidly during the last decade. Dr. Adnan Hadidi, trained in classical archeology at the University of Missouri, is the Director, and he has energeticallypromoted all aspects of archeologicalresearchin Jordan. The two main field archeologists in the Department are Dr. Moawiyah Ibrahim, who studied archeology in West Berlin,and Dr. Fawzi Zayadine, who specializedin Nabateanstudiesin Paris. The Amman Archeological Museumis quite small, but an expansion is currentlybeing planned. The Departmentlibraryis also small, but it is nicely housed in a new buildingon Jebel Amman. Outside Amman, local inspectors staff regional offices and museums in such cities as Madeba, Kerak, and Irbid. The Department sponsorsits own excavationand survey projects,carriesout most salvageprojects, enters into joint projects with foreign teams, facilitates numerous foreignexpeditions,and carrieson the constant task of protecting and preservingsites. Jordancontinuesto maintain a fair division of finds policy towardforeignexpeditions. At the Universityof Jordanin Amman, the Departmentof Archeologyis also growingat a rapidpace. The B.A. programnow has over 50 students,and the M.A. programover20. Dr. Safwan Tell, who received his training in Islamicart and archeologyin the U.S. and Turkey, is the Chairmanof the Department.The othermembersof the Department are Dr. Mahmud Abu Taleb, who studied ancient history at the Universityof Pennsylvania,Dr. Assem Barghouti,who specializedin classical archeologyat the Universityof Chicago, Dr. KhairYassine, who concentrated in Bronze-Iron Age archeology at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Nabil Khairy,who specializedin Nabatean studies at the London Institute. Eight young Jorda-

nians are currently outside Jordan working on advanced degrees in archeology. The University has its own museum and laboratory, and the Department of Archeology sponsors its Current National own fieldwork projects. Three foreign archeological inArcheological Schools Many different countries are currently stitutes are flourishing in Amman, and involved in the recovery of the rich numerous other foreign expeditions are archeological histories of Jordan and working in Jordan. The American Center of Oriental Research, founded in Syria. Jordan. In Jordan, the Depart- 1968, serves as a base of operations for ment of Antiquities has developed very American and other projects. It has a 78

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

hostel and a small library, and the ACOR staff teachat the Universityand offer courses for the public at ACOR itself. The British School of Archeology,withCrystalBennettas the Director, and the GermanEvangelical Institute,with Ute Luxas the Director, likewise functionas bases for British, German, and other projects. The Frenchare at work in Jordanthrough the French ArcheologicalInstitute in Beirut,whereErnestWill is the Director. Other countries or organizations which are workingin Jordanare Holland (H. J. Franken,G. van der Kooij), Australia(J. B. Hennessy),Spain (M. Almagro, E. Olivarri), Belgium (P. Naster, D. Hombs-Fredericq),Denmark(S. Holm-Nielsen),andthe Franciscans (M. Piccirillo).There is also a popular society in Amman known as the "Friends of Archeology," which sponsors archeologicalfield trips and lectures. Syria. The Syrian Directorateof Antiquitiesin Damascusalso is thriving. The Directoris Dr. Afif Bahnassi, who studied Arabic literature and culture at Paris, and the Director of Excavationsis Dr. AdnanBounni,who studied classical and Palmyrene archeology,also at Paris. Among the key field archeologistsare Dr. Kassem Toueir,Mr. Nassib Saliby,andMr. Ali Abou Assaf. The main archeological museum and library are located in Damascus,but anotherfine museumis located in Aleppo. Experienced archeologicalrepresentativesare found in the offices and smaller museums throughout Syria, such as in Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, and Palmyra.The Directoratesponsorsprojects of its own, as well as joint projects with foreign expeditions, and it welcomesthe numerousforeignprojects that arein Syriaeachyear.Syriausually allows sherds and samples, but not fine objects or inscriptional materials, to leave the country by official division. As in Jordan, the Directorate is also constantly involved in the preservation and reconstruction of archeological sites. The universities in Damascus and Aleppo have departments of history, but not archeology (although Damascus had a Department of briefly Archeology). Few Syrians are currently studying outside the country for advanced degrees in archeology or related disciplines.

One foreign institute is active in Damascus, the French Institute for Arabic Studies, underthe directionof ThierryBianquis.The institutehas an excellent library, and it sponsors archeologicalprojectswhich are relevant to the Islamicperiods.The French Archeological Institute in Beirut, directed by E. Will, also sponsors numerous projects in Syria. The AmericanCenterof OrientalResearch in Ammanis also now servingas a base for some American projectsin Syria. But most of the foreignexpeditionsto Syriaare carriedout by teamswhichdo not have nationalresearchinstitutesin the country.Amongthe countrieswhich are representedby such expeditionsare Italy (P. Matthiae), Britain(P. Parr), Belgium(J. Ch. Balty),the U.S.A. (R. Poland (M. Dornemann), Gawlikowski), Holland (H. J. Franken),West Germany (E. Strommenger), Switzerland (R. Stucky), Japan (I. Kobori), and East Germany (H. Klengel).Syria also has two popular archeologicalgroups,one in Aleppo called"TheFriendsof Archeology," and the otherin Damascuscalled"The Society of the Friendsof Damascus." CurrentArcheological Funding(American)

Jordan and Syria. Because of local

inflation and dollar devaluation, the costs of archeologicalresearchare rising rapidlyin bothJordanandSyria. In general,Jordantoday is a more expensive country to work in than Syria. Still, in both countries,excavationsare plannedalmostentirelyon the basis of hired local labor forces rather than foreign volunteers.How long this will continue to be the case remainsto be seen becausethe costs of local labor are certainto continuerising. Fundingarcheologicalresearchis a complex matter in both Jordan and Syria, but at the presenttime it may be somewhat easier in Jordan. The Department of Antiquities of Jordan is often able to contribute workmen, equipment, vehicles, and other indirect support to worthwhile projects. This has not been possible in Syria. The American government is annually contributing substantial funds (ca. 50% of the budget) to support ACOR in Jordan. Although the U.S. government might be willing to support a similar research institute in Syria, a number of factors, including the political situa-

tion, so far havepreventedmovementin this direction. A new but growing sourceof funds,in Jordanprimarilybut also in Syria, is contract archeology. Both the Jordanian governmentand USAID are granting contracts for archeologicalimpactstudiesin connection with major developmentprojects (e.g., Potash Township Site; Yarmuk RiverDam). In Jordanas well as Syria, funding has frequently come from publicand privatefoundations,suchas the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation,the National Geographic Society, the Kyle-Kelso Foundation, and the Zion Research Foundation. Likewise,expeditionsin both countries often raise funds by formingconsortia of sponsoringinstitutions,by charging studentsreasonabletuitionfees, and by solicitingprivategifts. CurrentArcheological Methodsand Theory

Jordan and Syria. The excavation

techniques which are used in both Jordan and Syria are usuallythose of the Wheeler-Kenyonmethod,although numerousdifferent terminologiesand recordingsystems are in use. My own judgment is that the method as used widely today puts too much emphasis on the vertical dimensionand that it needsto be modifiedto bringthe vertical and the horizontal more into balance.Archeologistsfromthe French and German traditions still give far more attention to architectural recording,analysis,and reconstruction than do those from the American, British,and other traditions. The scientific disciplinesare now becoming more and more involvedin archeological research in both countries. Geologists and geographers are frequently found on excavation staffs. Physical anthropologistsnow usually processthe animal and human bone materials from excavations. Paleoethnobotanists now compare the carbonized ancient plant remains, recovered by flotation, with modern plant specimens from the region. Pollen samples have been studied to determine the ancient flora and climate of the region. Modern climatic data have been gathered to provide a base for comparison with the data about ancient climates. Cultural anthropologists are studying modern bedouin and village life to help understand the ancient uses

of differentenvironments. Jordan and Syria also have seen the application of technological advances to archeological research. Groundphotogrammetry has beenused to prepareelevationsof buildingsand tomb facades, while aerial photogrammetryhas been used to makecontour maps and plans of archeological sites. Normal aerial photographyhas been possible in both countries, but primarilyin Jordan,andkiteshavebeen usedfor low levelphotographyin Syria. Satellite photographs,suppliedby the Eros Data Center, also have been utilized.Magnetometersand resistivity instrumentshave been tried in both countries to locate undergrounddiscontinuities(wall,caves,tombs,etc.). A laser-guidedand computerizedtransit was foundto be very usefulfor quickly and accurately locating archeological sites during regional survey work in Jordan.Computershave been used to help in the reconstructionof collapsed architecture,to process field records, andto preparebibliographies.A microfiche system has been used on one excavationin Syriato enablea compact archeologicallibraryto be broughtto the site. Pottery processinghas been speededup and mademoreaccurateby the use of a geologicalsaw for cutting sherdsanda draftingmachinefor drawing wholepots. Many types of ceramic analysis have been carried out, including neutron activation analysis, microscopicthin section analysis, and kiln refiring. In the areaof archeologicaltheory, it cannotbe saidat the presenttimethat a greatdeal of formaltheoreticalthinking is going on in Jordan and Syria. While the disciplineis busy absorbing the applications of science and technology,it is still clearlyin the realm of the humanitiesand the social sciences, not the hardsciences.Thus, it is seldomthatsomeonespeaksin termsof "explanation," "Law," or "Prediction," absolute concepts which are often associated with the "New Archeology." Much of the theoretical thinking that is going on in Jordan and Syria could be described as pragmatic, that is, having to do with matters of excavation, recording, and publication techniques. Much of it also could be described as conceptual, such as studying regions rather than single sites, or emphasizing the entire history of man rather than individual narrow periods.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

79

CurrentArcheological Research This paperis concernedwiththe present state and the future of archeological research in Jordan and Syria, from 1968 on. It is not possible to outline here the long history of past archeologicalresearch in Jordan and Syria, from the explorers and surveyorswhovisitedtheseregionspriorto ca. 1900 to the manysurveysandmajor excavations which were carried out betweenca. 1900and 1968.Instead,we will turn immediatelyto the current situationin Jordanand Syria. Duringthe last decade, numerous archeologicalprojectshavebeencarried out in Jordanand Syria. In 1978,there were over 30 differentprojectsin each country,and that numberhas been increasingeachyear.The projectsinclude both excavationsand surveys,and they arebeingcarriedout withequalvigorin the prehistoricperiods,the Bronze-Iron Ages, the classical periods, and the Islamic periods. The results of these projectsare filling in gaps in information and are helpingto solve old problems, but they also are creatingsome new issues as well. Paleolithic-EarlyNeolithic(pre-35,000-

6000 B.C.)

Jordan.In Jordan,recentworkon the Paleolithic (pre-14,000 B.C.),EpiPaleolithic(ca. 14,000-8000B.C.),and Early Neolithic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.) periodshas includedsurveysbut not excavations. S. Helms conducted a regionalsurveynear Jawa;A. Garrard studiedsites near Azraq;P. Hammond surveyedsites in the Wadi Ramm; D. Henry carriedout an initial surveyof sites near Ras en-Naqb;and J. Sauer visiteda numberof sitesthroughoutthe eastern desert. Other regionalsurveys encounteredstrongprehistoricremains, including the East Jordan Valley Survey of M. Ibrahim,J. Sauer, and Kh. Yassine, the Bab edh-Dhra Survey of D. McCreery, the Zerqa-Yarmuk Survey of T. Kerestes, J. Lundquist, B. Wood, and Kh. Yassine, and the Central Moab Survey of J. M. Miller. These projects have confirmed the widespread activities of prehistoric man throughout Jordan, including the desert regions, which indicates that a more favorable climate existed during those periods. It would be important to study pollen samples from the dry lake beds in the desert, to test that conclusion, and

80

to refine it. The "kites" of the desert have been studied by S. Helms, who concluded that they were "Chalcolithic"in date (in agreement with Yadin's interpretation of the Narmer Palette). He also concluded thattheywereof mixedfunctions,some for huntingbut most for retainingsurface runoffwater.Of the several"kites" I havevisited,nonecouldhavedirected surfacerunoffwater since they crossed wadis and dry lake beds and ran over hills. The artifacts at the "kites" included numerous fragmentary flint arrowheads,and rare, small pieces of Roman-Byzantine pottery (probably representinglater Safaitic activities). The flint arrowheadswouldsupportinterpretingthese "kites"as game-driving installations,and their date could probably be as early as the Early Neolithic period. Syria. In Syria, recentworkon the Paleolithic-EarlyNeolithic periodshas includedboth surveysand excavations. Among the surveyscould be noted the work of H. Suzuki and I. Koborinear Palmyra,of J. Sapinalongthe Orontes, andof P. Sanlavillealongthe Euphrates and the Balikh. Excavationshave includedworkby H. de Contensonat Tell Ramad, Tell Aswad, and Ghoraifein southernSyria and at Ras Shamraon the coast, by J. Cauvin at Tell Mureybet and Bouqras on the Euphratesand at Tell Aswad on the Balikh,and by A. M. T. Mooreat Tell Abu Hureyraon the Euphrates.These excavationshave dealt primarilywith very impressive Epi-Paleolithic and EarlyNeolithic remains.The resultsof the excavationsat Tell Aswad on the Balikh have called into question that generally held view that pottery appearedfairlyuniformlyat sites in Syria at the beginningof the Middle Neolithic period.The applicationof recent modificationsin carbon 14 dating to sites in Syria has also opened up the possibility of pushing back somewhat the dates of these periods. Middle Neolithic-Chalcolithic (ca. 6000-3300 B.C.) Jordan. Work on the Middle-Late Neolithic (ca. 6000-4250 B.C.) and Chalcolithic (ca 4250-3300 B.C.)periods in Jordan has included new excavations at Teleilat Ghassul by J. B. Hennessy. Numerous smaller Chalcolithic sites also were encountered during the East Jordan Valley Survey. It still cannot be

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

determinedif a gap, correspondingto the ceramicMiddleNeolithic of Syria, occurredin Jordan at the end of the Early Neolithic period. However, the excavations of Hennessy at Ghassul have tendedto confirma continuityof occupation from Early Chalcolithic through Late Chalcolithic(full-blown Ghassulian).So far in Jordan,typical GhassulianLate Chalcolithichas only been found in the southernhalf of the JordanValley. Whetherit overlapsin date with the EB I occupationsin the rest of the countryis still uncertain,but it would seem unlikely. Syria. In Syria, the main new evidencefor the MiddleNeolithic-Chalcolithic periods has come from the excavationsof H. de Contensonat Ras Shamra.The ceramicsequenceat Ras Shamra agrees with the Amuq sequence, with Dark Faced Burnished Ware in the Middle Neolithic, Halaf painted ware in the Late Neolithic, transitionalpainted ware in the Early Chalcolithic,and Ubaidpaintedwarein the Late Chalcolithic.AdditionalMiddle Neolithic remains have been reportedrecentlyfromsites as far south as Apamea(D. Collon, et al.) and Tell Ramad (H. de Contenson),and as far east as Tell Abu Hureyra(A. M. T. Moore) on the Euphrates and Tell Aswad(J. Cauvin)on the Balikh.Late ChalcolithicUbaid paintedpotteryhas also recentlycome from as far southas Apamea (D. Collon, et al.). Early Bronze I-IV (ca. 3300-1950 B.C.)

Jordan. In Jordan, the EB I-IV periods have seen quite a bit of new work. S. Helms carried out excavations at EB I (ca. 3300-2950 B.C.)Jawa;

M. Ibrahim encounteredbasal EB I duringexcavationsat Sahab;W. Rast, R. T. Schaub, and D. Ortner are thoroughly studying the EB I-IVA settlementandcemeteryremainsat Bab edh-Dhra, as well as the EB III remains at nearby Numeirah; and P. Naster and D. Hombs-Fredericq are about to begin excavations at Lahun, where EB IV sites are attested. EB I-IV remains have also been very well represented in the various regional surveys, including the Dead Sea Survey of W. Rast and R. T. Schaub, the East Jordan Valley Survey, the Zerqa-Yarmuk 'Survey, the Central Moab Survey, the Hesban Survey of R. Ibach, and the Beqah Survey of P. McGovern. The various EB I occupa-

tions (EB IA-C and others)still represent a problem of geographicaland chronologicalinterpretation.Manydifferentphysicalculturesare represented by the sites, which would seem to be post-Ghassulian but pre-EB II. Whether they overlap the Ghassulian and whetherthey are themselvescontemporaryor sequentialcannotfully be determined(althoughEB IA and EB IB can be consideredsequential).The new work of Rast and Schaubin the region of Babedh-Dhra,whichbroughtto light additional EB settlements and cemeteries, has modified the earlier interpretationof Lapp, who consideredthe Bab edh-Dhracemeteryto be uniquein the region. The site of Jawa, in northeastJordan, representsan EB I city whichtook advantageof the higher rainfall patterns of the volcanic Jebel Druze region. The EB III site of Numeirah was destroyed and abandoned, as was the case with other sites in Jordan and Palestine. During EB IVA-B (ca. 2350-1950 B.C.),it is clear that Jordanwas denselysettled,not by nomadicgroupsbut by settledvillagers. Whethera final phase,Dever'sEB IVC in Palestine, is present or absent in Jordanor whetherit overlapsEB IVB in Jordancannot yet be determined. Syria. In north Syria, dramatic new discoverieshave been made in the EB I-IV periods. ImportantEB I remains, closely related to Sumer, have been found at Tell Qannas(A. Finet), Habuba Kabira South (E. Strommenger), and Jebel Aruda (H. J. Franken,S. E. van der Leeuw)on the upperEuphrates.The EB II-III periods havebeenless well representedin the recent work.But EB IVA-Bhas witnessed the greattabletdiscoveriesat Tell Mardikh, ancient Ebla, excavated by P. Matthiae. This discovery has revolutionizedthe EB IV period, and the many large EB IV sites in north Syria (e.g., see the recentOrontessurvey of J.-C. Courtois) can now be understood in the context of the large Ebla state. Additional EB IV materials have recently come from Tell Selenkahiye (M. van Loon), Tell Sweyhat (T. Holland), and Tell Hadidi on the upper (R. Dornemann) Euphrates, from Tell Chuera (A. Moortgat, H. Kiihne) and Tell Brak (D. Oates, K. Fielden) in the Jezireh, and from Terqa on the lower Euphrates (G. Buccellati). It is not possible to agree with H. Kilhne, who would put the

materialsfrommost of thesesites in the EB II-III (ca. 2950-2350 B.C.) periods.

The closest parallelsto these materials in north Syria come from the EB IV sites in Jordan-Palestine,and it is not possible to accept the suggestionof a several hundred year lag in cultural developmentbetween north Syria and Jordanduringthis time. It shouldalso be notedthat materialswhichare parallel to the EB II-III periodsof JordanPalestine are already known from northwesternSyria fromthe Amuqand Ras Shamra. Middle Bronze-LateBronze (ca. 1950-1200 B.C.)

Jordan.In Jordan,substantialMB (ca. 1950-1550B.C)and LB (ca. 1550-

1200

B.C.) remains

have

been

encountered on a number of recent excavationsand surveys.A MB glacis was found by R. Dornemannduring excavationson the Amman Citadel.A MB occupationalphase was uncovered by M. Ibrahimat Sahab, and a MB "citadel" was found by S. Helms at Jawa. LB occupationalremains were exposedby M. Ibrahimat Sahabandby H. J. Frankenand M. Ibrahimat Tell Deir Alla. LB burialinstallationswere excavated by R. Brown and P. McGovernat Beqahandby A. Leonard at Qataretes-Samra.Additionalwork was done at the LB Amman Airport "Temple"by L. Herr. In addition,MB and LB remainswere well attested at certain sites during the East Jordan Valley Survey, the Beqah Survey, the Hesban Survey, the Zerqa-Yarmuk Survey, and to a lesser extent, the CentralMoab Survey.Duringa recent visit to the site of Safi, southeastof the Dead Sea, I also collectedunquestionable MB sherds.Glueckhad postulated a generalgap in sedentaryoccupation for the MB and LB periodssouthof the Zerqa River. That can no longer be maintained for central Jordan, but southernmost Jordan is still not controlled by new survey work. Many of the sites in Jordan attest large quantities of "chocolate-on-cream" and "red-on-white" pottery, but the transition from MB III to LB IA is still not properly understood. At the end of the LB IIB period at least two sites in Jordan were destroyed: Tell Deir Alla in the Jordan Valley and Sahab in the central hill country. Syria. In Syria, a number of sites recently have produced evidence which

is relevantto the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages. New MB remains are best attested at Tell Mardikh(P. Matthiae), at Tell Hadidi (R. Dornemann),Mumbaqat(E. Heinrich, et al.), and Habuba Kabira (E. Heinrich, et al.) along the upper Euphrates,and at Terqa(G. Buccellati) and Mari (A. Parrot) on the lower Euphrates.My recent survey in Syria also encounterednumerouslargeMB III tells in the central portionof north Syria, between Homs and Aleppo. Since little MB III-LB IA potterywas attested in this region and since "Hyksos"scarabsareequallyrare(e.g., Tell Mardikh,Hama), it would seem likely that the MB periodcame to an end earlierin this part of Syria than in Jordan-Palestine.LB remainsrecently have beenexcavatedat Tell Nebi Mend (P. Parr),at Meskeneh(J. Margueron), Tell Hadidi(R. Dornemann),Mumbaqat (E. Heinrich,et al.), and Tell elHajj (R. Stucky) along the upper Euphrates, and at Ras el-Bassit (P. Courbin)and Ras Ibn Hani(A. Bounni, J. Lagarce) on the coast. New cuneiformtablets have come from several of these sites. Althoughtherewere LB sites, includingsubstantialones like Tell Nebi Mend,in the interiorof Syria, the centerof populationwouldseem to have shifted from inland Syria to coastal Syria during the Late Bronze Age. IronI (ca. 1200-918B.C.) Jordan. In Jordan, considerable new work has been done in the Iron I period. Iron IA (ca. 1200-1000 B.C.) remainshavebeenfoundduringexcavations in the centralhill country,at Tell Hesban (R. Boraas, S. Horn, and L. Geraty), Sahab (M. Ibrahim),Khirbet el-Hajjar(H. Thompson),and Jerash (A. Barghouti),and in the regionof ancient Moab at Khirbetel-Medeiyineh North (E. Olivarri). Additional sites were found in the hill country during the Hesban Survey, the Beqah Survey, and the Central Moab Survey, and one definite Iron IA site was found in the south Jordan Valley during the East Jordan Valley Survey. Characteristic of these Iron IA remains is poorly made pottery and, at Khirbet el-Medeiyineh North and Khirbet el-Medeiyineh South in Moab, pillared houses. Iron IB (ca. 1200/1150-1000 B.C.)remains have recently been excavated by Kh. Yassine at Tell el-Mazar in the north Jordan

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

81

Valley,andnumeroussites attestingthe paintedwaresof Iron IB werefoundin the northJordanValleyduringthe East Jordan Valley Survey. Iron IC (ca. 1000-918 B.C.)remains have not clearly

beenattestedin recentexcavationwork, but in the JordanValley, the fine redslipped and burnishedwares of the periodwere foundat a numberof sites duringthe East JordanValley Survey. In agreementwith the old reconstruction of Albrightand Wright,it can be argued that the distribution and characterof the Iron IA sites would suggestthat they reflectIsraelite,Ammonite,andMoabitesettlementsduring the period of the Judges, while the distributionand characterof the Iron IB sites wouldsuggestthat they reflect Philistineor Sea Peoplessettlements.It is striking,however,that the Iron IA physicalcultureof the two Medeiyinehs in Moab is so similarto that which is known from Iron IA sites in Israelite regionswest of the JordanRiver.In the hill countryof Jordan,the LB occupation was succeededby Iron IA occupations, which could well be associated with the Israelite conquest. In the JordanValley,the LB-IronI transition is not as clear, largelybecauseIron IA remainshave not been documentedin the north Jordan Valley. That they shouldbe thereis suggestedby the fine Iron IA remains at Taannek in the Plain of Esdraelon. Syria. In Syria relativelyfew sites have recently produced Iron I materials.Pottery similar to the Iron IA potteryof Jordan-Palestinehas not been publishedfrom Syria. However, potterywhichis similarto the Iron IB pottery of Jordan-Palestinehas come from several recent excavationsalong the coast, such as Ras el-Bassit (P. Courbin)andRas IbnHani(A. Bounni, J. Lagarce).Iron IB pottery had been foundearlierat a numberof sites along the coast, such as Alalakh, Ras Shamra, Tell Sukas, and Tell Kazel, as well as inland as far as Hama. It would seem to be clear that the LB sites along the coast in Syria were destroyed by the "Sea Peoples," and that these Iron IB remains represent "Sea Peoples" occupations. As in Jordan, the Iron IC period has not been well represented in recent excavations. Iron II-Persian (ca. 918-332 B.C.) Jordan. In Jordan, new evidence is

82

availablefrom the Iron II (ca. 918-539 very late Iron Age pottery from B.C) and Persian (ca. 539-332 B.C.) Samaria)and on other associatedartiperiods.Amongthe IronII remainscan facts (Greekblack-glazedsherdsand a be cited the Hesban water reservoir, coin of the Persianperiod).Thecircular constructed of fine header-stretcher planof someof the towersalso couldbe stones, the unexcavatedProto-Aeolic cited as evidence, because it could capitals at KhirbetMedeibi in Moab, perhapsbe transitionalto the circular and the large public structures at plan of the much finer Hellenistic Buseirah in Edom, excavated by C. towersat Samaria. Bennett. These architecturalremains Syria. In Syria, not as much new can probablybest be comparedto the evidence is available for the Iron IIIron IIA (ca. 918-721 B.C.)public archi- Persianperiods.Along the coast, Iron tecture at Samaria. In the region II red- or tan-slipped and wheelaroundAmmanand in the JordanVal- burnishedwares, as well as Cyproley, much of the new evidencebelongs Phoenicianpainted wares, have come to the end of the period,Iron IIC (ca. from several recently excavated sites, 605-539 B.C.)and Persian (ca. 539-332 such as Ras Ibn Hani (A. Bounni,J. B.C.). Near Amman this material has Lagarce) and Ras Shamra (H. de come from the Amman Citadel (R. Contenson). These Iron II remains Dornemann,F. Zayadine,C. Bennett, reflect,like the olderexcavatedremains E. OlIvarri), Hesban (R. Boraas, S. along the coast, Phoenician occupaHorn, L. Geraty),Sahab(M. Ibrahim), tions. Inland, some Iron II remains, Tell Siran (H. Thompson), Rujm el- reflectingAramean occupations,have Malfuf North (R. Boraas), Rujm el- come from recentsurveysnear Aleppo MalfufSouth(H. Thompson),and Kh. (J. Matthers) and Homs-Hama (J. el-Hajjar(H. Thompson);and in the Sauer),as well as fromthe newexcavaJordan Valley it has come from the tions at Tell Nebi Mend (P. Parr)and uppermostlayersat Tell Deir Alla (H. from Tell el-Hajj (R. Stucky) on the J. Franken,M. Ibrahim)and from a Euphrates. Persian remains, usually new cemetery at Tell el-Mazar (Kh. marked by "Persian Horseman Yassine).Importantepigraphicremains Figurines,"are attestedat a numberof have come from severalof these sites. sites, including Ras Shamra (H. de Also, included among these sites are Contenson)on the coast, Tell Mardikh severalcircularmegalithictowersin the (P. Matthiae)inland, and Tell el-Hajj vicinityof Amman, of the type which (R. Stucky) on the Euphrates. Glueckidentifiedas Iron I-II (ca. 1200600 B.C)Ammonitedefensiveinstalla- Hellenistic-Byzantine tions. Duringhis excavationsat one of (ca. 332 B.C.-A.D.640) Jordan. In Jordan,new work has thesetowers,Rujmel-MalfufNorth,R. Boraasconcludedthat it was probably been carriedout at Hellenistic(ca. 332Roman rather than Iron Age, which 63 B.C.) sites. The finest Hellenistic threw Glueck's dating and interpreta- monumentin Jordan,the Qasrat Araq tion into doubt.Subsequentworkat the el-Emir,has beenexcavatedby E. Will, tower, and at other circularand rec- J.-M. Dentzer,and F. Larche.New extangular towers near Amman, con- amples of fine Late HellenisticsculpfirmedtheirIronAge date. I wouldnow ture were uncovered,and small quanargue, however,that at least some of tities of Late Hellenistic (ca. 198-63 the towersbelongto the very late Iron B.C.)pottery were found, enough to conAge, thatis, to the Neo-Babylonianand firm the 2nd-century B.C. date of the Persian periods. The Ammonites could have benefited from the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.and from the fact that Nabonidus later lived at Teima in northern Arabia. It would be to the period of the Jewish exile and return, when the Tobiad "Ammonites" and the Samaritans of Samaria opposed the Jews in Jerusalem, that I would assign some of the towers near Amman. The archeological argument is based on the local pottery from the towers (which is best paralleled in Palestine by the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

structure. Its internal plan and function remain uncertain, partly because it was probably never completed and partly because it was extensively reused during the Early Byzantine period. Other excavated sites which have produced Hellenistic remains, especially pottery, are Tell Hesban (R. Boraas, S. Horn, L. Geraty) and the Amman Citadel (F. Zayadine, C. Bennett). The Hellenistic period was also well representedby sites during the East Jordan Valley Survey. In terms of recent Nabatean field-

work, the main effort has been on the partof P. Hammondat Petraitself.His excavationshaveuncovereda newtemple and domestic remains, and the Nabatean-Byzantinepottery sequence fromthe excavationscouldbe extremely important. Additional Nabatean architecturewill soon be excavatedby P. Naster and D. Hombs-Fredericqat the site of Lahun. Nabatean remains also were encountered during the Central Moab Survey and during a brief survey by D. Graf in southernmost Jordan. One of the questions which a controlledsequenceof pottery from Petra could answer would be whetheror not many of the Nabatean sites in southernJordancontinuedto be occupied

following

the

A.D. 106

annexationof Nabatea by the Romans.

The Roman period (ca. 63 B.C.-A.D.

324) has been much studiedduringrecent years. The excavations at Tell Hesban contributed a stratified sequenceof potteryfor the EarlyandLate Romanperiods.Excavationshavegone on and continueto go on at some of the major Roman cities, such as AmmanPhiladelphia(F. Zayadine,C. Bennett, E. Olivarri), Jerash (A. Barghouti), Umm el-Jimal(B. De Vries),and Pella (R. Smith). The Franciscanshavejust begunnewexcavationsat Mukawer,the Herodian fortress-palaceMachaerus. The Romanlimes systemwas surveyed by S. T. Parker, and parts of it were studiedsubsequentlyand independently by D. Graf and D. Kennedy.V. Clark and M. MacDonald have studied the Safaitic inscriptions in the desert regions, and a probable Thamudic cemeterynear Zizia was excavatedby M. Ibrahimand D. Ball. Many of the projectsdealingwith the Roman period also dealt with the Byzantine period (ca. A.D. 324-640), including the work at Tell Hesban, Jerash,Umm elAmman-Philadelphia, Jimal, Pella, and the Roman limes sites. To these could be added the excavation of Byzantine churches and mosaics at various sites, including Umm Qeis (U. Lux, E. Krueger), Swafiyeh, Madeba, Masuh, and Abu Sarbut (B. Van Elderen), Mt. Nebo (M. Piccirillo), and Tell Hesban (J. Lawlor). It should also be noted that both the Roman and the Byzantine periods were always well represented during the various regional surveys. Syria. Extensive Hellenistic (ca. 332-64 B.C.) remains are attested

throughoutSyria, and recent evidence has come from such sites as Tell Nebi Mend(P. Parr),Apamea(J. Ch. Balty), and Tell Mardikh (P. Matthiae) in north Syria, from Ras el-Bassit (P. Courbin),Ras Ibn Hani (A. Bounni,J. Lagarce), and Ras Shamra (H. de Contenson)along the coast, and from Tell el-Hajj (R. Stucky) and Tell esSweyhat (T. Holland) along the Euphrates.The EarlyHellenisticperiod

Persian types of pottery, especially green-glazed Parthian types. Known from older excavations,such as DuraEuropos,potteryof this typehasrecently beenreportedfromthe excavationsat Tell el-Hajj(R. Stucky)andDibsiFaraj (R. Harper). Islamic (ca. A.D.630-1918)

Jordan. In Jordan, the Islamic periodshave been studiedquite inten(ca. 332-198 B.C.), characterized by sively in recentyears. The excavations black-"glazed"wares,wouldseemto be at Tell Hesban provided the basic muchbetterrepresentedin Syriathanin ceramic sequence:Umayyad (ca. A.D. Jordan.Thereis some evidenceto sug- 661-750), Abbasid (ca. A.D. 750-969), gest thatred-"glazed"wareswerein use Fatimid (ca. A.D.969-1071), Ayyubid in Syria towards the end of the Late (ca. A.D.1174-1263),and Mamluk(ca. Hellenistic period (ca. 198-64 B.C.),but A.D.1260-1516).This sequencehas now the evidenceis not conclusive.In any beenconfirmedat othersites in Jordan, case, the Hellenistic remains in Syria especiallythe AmmanCitadel(C. Benclearlycorrespondto the highperiodof nett, E. Olivarri). Umayyad remains Seleucidsupremacyin the region. have been encounteredwidely during In the interiorof Syria, the great most of the regionalsurveysand during site of Palmyra has seen continued the excavationsat Tell Hesban,Hamwork by M. Gawlikowski, K. mam es-Sarakh(Gh. Bisheh),Umm elMichalowski,and othermembersof the Jimal (B. De Vries), Jerash (A. Polishexpedition,andby Kh.Assad,A. Barghouti), Umm Qeis (U. Lux, E. Bounni, and N. Saliby of the Syrian Krueger), Pella (R. Smith), and the Directorate. Numerous architectural, AmmanCitadel(C. Bennett,E. OlAvarlinguistic, ceramic, and other studies ri). On the AmmanCitadel,E. Olhvarri are followingfrom this work. has confirmed by ceramic and As in Jordan,the Roman (ca. 64 numismatic evidence the Umayyad B.C.-A.D.324) and Byzantine (ca. A.D. (ratherthanLate Byzantine)date of the 324-640)periodsare very well attested impressiveQasr.At QuseirAmrah,the in Syria. Recent work has included fine Umayyadfrescoeswerecleanedby excavationsat Bosra (S. Moughdad,et a Spanishteam headedby M. Almagro. al.) and Sia (J.-M. Dentzer) in the The Abbasid-Fatimidperiodshavebeen south, at Apamea (J. Ch. Balty) and much more weakly represented Dehes(J. P. Sodini)in the north,at Ras throughout Jordan. Abbasid pottery el-Bassit(J. Courbin)and Ras IbnHani was attestedat Tell Hesban,and both (A. Bounni,J. Lagarce)alongthe coast, Abbasidand Fatimidwerefoundon the and at Dibsi Faraj(R. Harper),Tell el- AmmanCitadel,but these periodswere Hajj(R. Stucky),and Tell SheikhHas- not well attested at other recentlyexsan (M. Roumi) along the Euphrates. cavated sites. The Ayyubid-Mamluk Also beingcarriedout are architectural periods, however, were very strongly surveys,such as those by M. R5stle in representedduring all of the regional the south near Jebel Druze and by G. surveys and duringthe excavationsat Tate in the northnearAleppo. In addi- Tell Hesban, Tell Siran (H. tion to the fine Roman (and in the Thompson),Ayn el-Basha(S. Tell), the south, Nabatean) architecture, the iron mine at Mugharatel-Wardeh(R. excavations and surveys have exposed Coughenour),and, to some extent, on numerous Byzantine churches as well. the Amman Citadel (C. Bennett, E. In the Jebel Druze, the Roman road Olivarri). Numerous water-driven system also has been examined by T. sugar mills of the Ayyubid-Mamluk Bauzou. Roman-Byzantine pottery, periodwere foundin the JordanValley however, has been little studied in duringthe East JordanValley Survey. Syria. Alongside the typical Early Remains in Jordanfrom the Crusader Roman terra sigillata and the typical (ca. A.D.1099-1291)and Ottoman(ca. Byzantine "red wares" are found local A.D.1516-1918)periodshave been little common wares that cannot be dated studied. closely. Also, along the Euphrates in Syria. In Syria, considerablework eastern Syria are found Parthian- has been done at Islamic sites, often BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

83

with impressivearchitecture.But the ceramicpicturein Syria is not as clear as in Jordan. Umayyad (ca. A.D.661750) pottery, similar to that published earlier from Usais (K. Brisch), came from above a Byzantine church at Apamea(J. Ch. Balty).It is not clearif similar Umayyad pottery also came from Qasral-HayrSharqi(0. Grabar), located far to the east. Along the Euphrates,extensiveremainsfrom the Abbasid period,ca. A.D.750-1260,are to be found, includingsuch excavated sites as Meskeneh (J. Margueron), Raqqa (K. Toueir, F. Peters), Mayadine (K. Toueir, Th. Bianquis), and Terqa (G. Buccellati).Numerous Abbasid sites also are located in the Jezireh, especially along the lower Khabur. In southern Syria, excavations by K. Toueir in Damascusproducedglazedpotterythatwouldseemto be Mamluk(ca. A.D.1260-1516)in date. At Apamea,handmadepaintedpottery similarto that foundat Hama has been published,and it may belong to the Mamluk (A.D. 1260-1516) or to the Ottoman (A.D. 1516-1918) period. Severalarchitecturalstudieshave been carriedout in the Crusaderperiod(ca. A.D.1097-1291),includingthe studyof Markaband Krakdes Chevaliersby J. Folda. As in Jordan,the archeological remainsfrom the Ottomanperiod(ca. A.D.1516-1918)have beenlittle studied in Syria. FutureProspects Jordanand Syria. The futureprospects for archeological research in Jordanand Syria are almost limitless. Althougha great deal is knownabout

84

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

the archeologicalhistoriesof these two countries,those historiesare just now beginningto be knownin detail.There have been major surprisesduringthe last decade in research,and there will undoubtedlybe additionalsurprisesin the future. The recent surveys which have been conducted in Jordan have produced40-90%new data, whichis an indicationof how relativelyvirgin the countryis. The sameis trueof Syria. It is also clearthat Jordanand Syriapossess extensive remains from every archeologicalperiod, from prehistoric times to the modern day. Numerous futureprojectshave alreadybeen plannedto studythe variousaspectsof these remains, but many more projectsare needed.Thereis an elementof urgency in this need,becausethe rapideconomic developmentof Jordan and Syria is leadingto the inevitabledestructionof archeological evidence. The present climatefor archeologicalresearchcould not be better in both countries, and hopefully nothing will happen on the politicallevel to changethat. Regionalsurveys,whichare a very economicalformof research,are badly needed.In Jordan,the greatestneedsat the presenttime are prehistoricsurveys in the desertand regionalsurveysin the south. In Syria,manyregionsneedsurveying, but especially southernSyria, the OrontesValley,the Jezireh,andthe lower Euphrates. Soundingsat selected small sites, primarilyto solvespecificchronological problems, would also be helpful. In Jordan, soundings could clarify such problemsas the transitionfrom Late Chalcolithicto EB I, from EB IV to MB I, from MB III to LB IA, fromLB

1982

IIB to Iron IA-B, and from Nabatean to Roman.In Syria,suchworkcoulddo the same for the EB I-IV, Iron I-II, Hellenistic, Roman-Byzantine, and Islamic periods. Major excavations are obviously neededas wellto obtainthe fullrangeof archeologicalinformationfrom sites of variousperiodsand variousregions.In Jordan, virtually no Paleolithic sites havebeenexcavated,so that wouldbe a high priority. Of equal importance would be Bronze-Iron Age sites in centraland northernJordan.In Syria, EB I-IV, IronAge, and Islamicsites in inland Syria would probably be the most important ones at the present time. Also neededare specialistsin many fields who can process the many different kinds of evidencethat the projects in Jordan and Syria produce. Included would be small object specialistswho can handleglass, coins, jewelry, figurines,etc., architectsand conservationexpertswho can deal with architecturalremains, anthropologists who can process human and animal bones, paleoethnobotanistswho can identifyplantremains,epigrapherswho can publishinscriptionalevidence,and many other specialists. Thus, it is vital that American universities, colleges, museums, and seminaries continue to participate, oftenthroughASOR, in the recoveryof the archeologicalhistories of Jordan and Syria. The results of the present and future researchin these countries will be of immenseimportanceto any future synthetic studies in SyroPalestinianarcheology.

IN

NEW DEVELOPMEN ARCHEOLOGY GRECO-ROMAN

in

Palestine

James F. Strange

Greco-Romanarcheology in ancient Palestine is developing in new quantitativedirections that stress new methods of analyzing the data. Some surprisinginferencesare possible that go far beyond the old descriptionsand measurements.

This paper is devotedto the prospects archeology,locationanalysis,andinterfor Greco-Roman archeology in the pretation.(This analysisowes much to "Holy Land,"particularlyin the areas Redman 1973.) of researchdesignand interpretation.It Settlement archeology concerns is these two fields withinarcheological itself with the relationshipsof various research in the Near East that have elementswithina site to one another,or been left out in the developmentof the relationshipsof the sites to one another in an overall grid. Here we will move discipline. I think the most importantthing fromthe largerto the smaller,therefore we mightnoticeaboutthe currenttrend fromsettlementpatternsto city andvilin Greco-Romanarcheologyin Pales- lage planning. tine is thatpractitionersof the discipline Traditionallyit was the publisher are now more than ever in serious of field surveyswho inferredsettlement dialoguewith anthropologists,especial- patterns.This was for good reason, as ly at the level of interpretation.I do not the one who recordedthe sites in the mean to imply that specialists in the field was in the best position to know Hellenisticor Romanperiodsmusttalk the periodsrepresentedand the relative to the social scientists or stand in size of each site. Now this is increasingdangerof losingtheirsouls.I onlymean ly possible as an armchairdiscipline, that the fieldis no longercompletelyin- however,as moreandmoredatais pubgrown. It used to be that those in- lishedfromvarioussurveys,notablythe terested in the so-called later periods Survey of Israel, the ACOR surveyin spoke only to classicists, New Testa- Syria and Jordan,the HeshbonSurvey ment scholars, or perhaps Roman in conjunctionwith the excavationof historians, but certainly not to the Tell, and Unesco surveysin Egypt ethnologists, folklorists, geographers, and elsewhere.Not all the datathat the or statisticians. Now the picture is interpreterrequiresis there, but he or she can make certain inferences, changing. Therefore,I planto sketchherethe perhaps isolating the variables that outlines of the new developmentsin eventuatedin site location and size. Greco-Romanarcheologyin Palestine, The variables that dictate site or Eretz-Israel,with respect to three placement and patterning are someareas specifically: settlement times quite obvious: availability of

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

85

water, defense factors, topography, arable land, populationdensity in the regionin question,traderoutes,and so on. Othervariablesmay not be so clear. These include political and religious factors, technologicalskills of the settlers, supportcapacitiesof the landand water, social values, and perhaps others. It is the job of the settlement archeologist,among his or her many tasks,to attemptto isolatethe variables that are at workin his particularregion and accountfor them, even tentatively, in some sort of overviewor reasonably comprehensiveinterpretation. Let me be more specific: many settlementpatternmodelsformerlyexclusively in the domain of the geographersare now beinginvestigated and refinedby the archeologist.In 1970 and 1972 studies appearedon settlement patterns in the Negev (Marks 1971: 1237-44) and the southwestern United States (Ucko, Tringham, Dimbleby1972)that suggestedapplication in Roman Palestine.The assumption was that the patternin use allowed minimumhumaneffort in dealingwith the environment.In this case one looks to necessitiessuch as water, land, and fuel as the prime determinantsin site selection.This helps one to appreciate the relativelygreaterdistancesbetween Roman sites in the Negev as compared to the Galilee, or betweenthose of the Plain of Jezreel as comparedto Mt. Ephraim. The method is to recordthe distances to the various resources, the environmental zone, and the topographicsituationof eachsite. At its best it requirescomparativedata from successive periods, such as Hellenistic, Roman I, II, and III, and the Byzantine period.This allows one to deduce the relativeimportanceof these three variables in each region and predict settlement patterns for a given historicalperiod.This may now be possible in the Galilee and around Heshbon because of the surveys in these areas. Another type of site distribution detection relies on grids. Leslie J. King in 1969 published a text entitled Statistical Analysis in Geography that presents the method. Essentially one lays a rectangular grid over the region in question and counts the sites per grid square. One then massages the data statistically to attempt to infer whether the distribution is random, which of

86

course it is not. If it is simplyrandom the distributionwill most closelyresemble what the statisticianscall a Poisson distribution.It is possibleto show for Upper Galilee, for example (the only areaof Palestineknownto thiswriterto have been investigatedin this manner), that the sites are definitelynot random. It is furtherpossibleto showthat there is high correlationwith the location of springsand the topographyin general. This is no surprise.The surpriseis to discover how strongly spring location influencessettlementin an area of such high annualrainfall. Of course such calculations are morehelpfulif site distributionis somehow combinedwith site size. This latter datumhas historicallynot founda place in surveypublications,whichseemto be interested only in absence/presence data. It may be possibleto show,if site size is known,that there is more than one mode in site distribution.This impliessite hierarchy.Site hierarchyis important in discussing population shift, trade systems and subsystems, politicalgroupings,and the idea of the "centralplace." Central place theory was formulatedby geographersand refinedby them. It is often describedas part of "locationanalysis."This theorysimply states that the larger communities providedlargernumbersof servicesfor the surroundingsmaller villages. This implies that the larger central settlements would have wider spheres of economic and political influence. Christaller(1933) proposed that the distributionpattern for central place theory should be most reasonablya hexagonal lattice in which central places are arrangedequidistantfrom one anotherat the apexesof equilateral triangles.Each central place is at the center of a hexagonaltrade network. This modelhas been appliedto Roman Britain,wherethe researchersindicate

manence,and layout of a community. Generallyone understandsthat the permanence of the communityis a function of the economy of the region.On the other hand, layout is more often dependenton social and political factors, such as religion, marriage customs, kinship, ethnic identity, defense,land ownership,and so forth. In this case the archeologist records architectureand architectural features in a wide exposureof a site much as one otherwise records provenanceof artifacts.Such investigations of Mesoamerican and Mousterian sites have yielded spectacular results.As of this readingthe authoris aware of no such studies in GrecoRoman archeology,though we cannot escape them. Rathermorework in the Levantin the period in question has been expended on locational analysis in the sense of horizontaldensity patternsof artifacts within a single site. This includes the distributionof coins and glass, not to mention other artifacts classified by materials at Khirbet Shema in Upper Galilee (Meyers, Kraabel,and Strange1976:243-47).As yet the sophisticatedstatisticalanalysis of this placementin terms of covariational patterning has not been attempted for ancient Roman Palestine. We will soon see publicationof such studies. Since such analysesof artifactsas locationalanalysisare being used elsewhere to gain new insights into activities, residentpatterns,and ancient socialorganization,we expectto be able to applythe same or similarstudiesto Greco-Romanarcheologyin the landto yield similar results. After all, Kent Flannerystudiedvillage life in Mesoamerica and ancient Syria and concludedthat villagelife as such is not the independentvariable,but "the systems of social and political organizationof that no point in the Roman countryside which [villagelife] is merelythe archilay more than 6-10 km from a rural market (Hodder and Orton 1976: 25). Preliminary application of this theory to the settlement patterns of Upper and Lower Galilee in Roman Judea indicates approximately the same arrangement. On a smaller scale we turn to village and city planning, but not in the sense of the traditional city planner. Rather, the goals here are to isolate the factors that dictated the size, per-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

tectural manifestation" (Flannery 1972: 47). We therefore are encouraged to apply locational analysis to the published pottery for Qumran, for example, which de Vaux took care to label by its room of origin in the original publications in the Revue biblique. It is tentatively possible on the basis of these studies to assign the rooms to three or four types based on distribution profiles of ceramics discovered in them. It may

also be possible to make inferences of activities and social organization at Qumran if these studies are combined with knowledge of other artifacts and features from the various rooms in question. At this point I would like to draw your attention to a study of Mormon town plans and fences (Leone 1973: that 125-50). Leone discovered Mormon town planning was not dictated by the ability to exploit the ecosystem, but by their religious beliefs. In particular the Plat of the City of Zion insured that the ideal of egaliterianism was carried out: city lots were all of equal size with only one house per lot, centered in each rectangle facing the street. All streets were faced with houses, and no houses were directly across the street from one another. That is, no one looked directly into his neighbor's living room. But more importantly, Leone (1973: 146-47) suggested something else about the fences: ... whena Mormonraisesa gardenor a lawnbehinda fence,he has shownthat he has subdueda piece of the earth and made a bit of the desertbloom. He has helpedredeemthe earth.Growinga garden or a lawn is a challengethat he has met. He has madesomethingmorebeautiful, moreorderly,and morerefreshing; something neater, cleaner, and more desirable.He has createda semblanceof the divine. By managing,manipulating, and groomingthe earth,he has imitated God andproventhat he is worthy:he is a saint. A Mormon who creates somethinggreenhas shownhis innerstate. In this context,fencesare valuablebecause of whattheypreservebehindthem.What they preservein additionto a subsistence base is a man's right to a place in the Kingdom of God. One local Mormon summedit up: "The state of man'syard is the state of his religion." It is equally conceivable that fenced fields in Hellenistic or Roman Palestine reflect a similar ideal. If so, we can formulate a testable hypothesis that certain fences around fields of Jewish or Christian communities might reflect the principle of subduing the earth, as in Genesis 1. We could formulate a research hypothesis that such fences were not merely utilitarian but socioreligious in their function in the community. Therefore, we would expect field fences of Roman Gaul or Roman Syria to be different in kind and

execution. Such research remains to be done. As an aside here I would like to mention that studies of population size as a function of site area are rare for any period in Palestine, and the GrecoRoman periods are no exception. Recently, however, Magen Broshi of the Hebrew University has published population studies based on Frankfort's work in Mesopotamia that suggest that the ancient population averaged 160-200 persons per acre, or 40-50 persons per 1,000 m2 (one dunam) (Broshi 1975: 5-14). We need more controlled studies of this sort that rely directly on comparative data from modern sites in Israel and neighboring cities and villages. It may be that Broshi's figures rely too heavily on the estimates for Ostia (40/dunam) and Siaga in Tunisia (40/dunam) and that the agreements with ancient Mesopotamia are fortuitous (Packer 1967: 80-89; Duncan-Jones 1963: 85-90; Frankfort 1950: 99-115; Wilkinson 1974: 33-51; Byatt 1973: 51-60). At the level of interpretation, the main thing that must be said, in my view, is that we are badly in need of theoretical underpinning. Or, to put it another way, we have no theory of interpretation of ancient monuments and other elements of the material culture that even begins to approach the work of South (1977) in American historical archeology. This is more poignantly evident at the point of deduction of ancient religious beliefs and values where the texts fail us, that is, where we cannot rely on intertestamental literature, the Mishnah, New or Josephus for an Testament, "explanation" of what was going on. For example, some years ago Joachim Jeremias (1958) published a fine, brief study on an aspect of ancient Jewish "folk religion," namely, veneration of the tombs of holy men. This was a study in the literature of the tradition, fragmentary as it was, and therefore necessarily brief. Jeremias proposed that veneration of these traditional sites was an element in traditional "Volksreligion" and therefore not amenable to the normal "official" texts, as they would likely be slightly hostile to a semiheterodox practice. Thus, when Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange published the Khirbet Shema data (1976: 7-11), we said nothing about the religiosity implied by the venera-

tion of the putative tomb of Rabbi Shammai at the site. To put it plainly, since we had nothing in the ancient literature that "explained" the practice, and since we had no method to infer religiosity from remains, we simply kept our mouths shut. Now while it is far from true that any comprehensive theory to infer religion from archeological remains exists anywhere, substantive work is being done. It cannot but contribute finally to a scholarly consensus, provided we participate conscientiously in the debate. It is not the practitioners of Greco-Roman archeology that are developing methods of interpretation in the archeological remains of religion, but the New World archeologists. For example, recently Roy A. Rappaport has attempted to show that religion functions in a primitive society, and in any other society, as a maintainer of order. This is hardly a gripping, new hypothesis, except in its implications. To be more specific, Rappaport tries to show that religious experience supports "ultimate sacred propositions," which in turn direct ritual. Ritual in turn not only induces religious experiences (thereby closing a cybernetic loop) but also generates "sacred sentences" or messages that maintain social and ecological processes. To hypothesize about ancient Palestine, ancient synagogues and temple worship may have passed on the message, "Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the land and subdue it," which reinforced and maintained a specific agrarian attitude, and therefore specific agricultural behaviors. Thus, religion in the sense of belief, propositions, and ritual fit into a circular relationship with social and environmental systems that act upon religion. In other words, religion and ritual must be viewed as an integral part of a society and closely tied to all other activities. This suggests that traces of "folk" religious beliefs, attitudes, and propositions are to be found in the archeological record. I have not said, nor do I intend to say, that folk religion thereby can be directly detected in archeological remains. What I am doing is simply pointing out that, if we have a suitable theoretical framework, we are in a position to design a research program to try to get at such things as folk religion, which in the nature of the case is poorly

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

87

represented in the ancient literary sources.If, on the otherhand,we have no such theoretical underpinning,we have not the slightestclue how to proceed to dig up religionapartfrom temples, art, and ritual paraphernalia. Let us take anotherlook at Rappaport's theory. A corollary to his proposalthat religionmaintainssocial processes is that religion can be replaced by something else, usually technology.That is, as the enforcement systems of a society gain greater technologicalcontrol over social and environmentalsystems, religiousutterances are gradually"desanctified"or, to put it in terms familiar to us all, "secularized."Likewise if the other componentof the system, namely,the social order,collapsesfor some reason, then so does the belief system that maintainedit. Robert Drennan(1976: 234-63) has used this schemeto try to understandsocial revolution in early Mesoamerica.Drennanhas concluded that Olmec society attracted populations to great ceremonialcenters and overloadedthe agriculturalsystemthat supported them and brought them economic collapse. The result was, among other things, the mutilationof the giant Olmec statues at the ceremonialcenters.Drennaninterprets this as the last act of defiancetowarda belief system that had collapsedwith the culture. Perhapsin this scenariowe havea mode of understandingwhy synagogue architecturemoved from spare, clean, small, undecorated buildings to the large,highlydecoratedones we haveall seen from Capernaum, Beth Alpha, Hammath-Tiberias, etc. After two crushing defeats at the hands of the Romansin two centuries,perhapsthat particularbelief (in no pictures)went out the window,and the Jewishculture of Palestineshiftedits belief systemto allow synagogueart.

88

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

This is no morethan a hypothesis, but perhapsit illustrateshow a general theory can help us understand a phenomenonthat is otherwise interpretedas thoughit weresui generis.But the very natureof "explanation"in science and social science means to subsume a phenomenonto a generallaw. Withouttheorywe do not arriveat the universal, or nearly universal, principles that govern a social system's operation.That is, withouttheory,we will forevermoredescribe and count, ratherthan findout whatmakesGrecoRoman Palestine tick, whatever Josephus or others may have said. Developmentof theory, I think, will mark the next major step in GrecoRomanarcheologyin ancientPalestine.

Bibliography Broshi, Magen La Population de l'Ancienne Jeru1975 salem. Revue biblique 82: 5-14. Byatt, A. 1973 Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 105: 51-60. Christaller, Walter Die zentralen Orte in Siiddeutsch1933

land.Jena:KarlZeiss.

Drennan,R. D. 1976 Religion and Social Revolutionin

Formative Mesoamerica. Pp.234-63 in The Early Mesoamerican Village,

ed. K. Flannery. New York:

Press. Academic

Duncan-Jones, R. P.

1963

City Populationin Roman Africa.

Journal of Roman Studies 53: 85-90. Flannery, Kent

1972

TheOriginsof the Villageas a Settle-

mentTypein Mesoamerica andthe

Near East: A Comparative Study. Pp. 23-53 in Man, Settlement and

1982

Urbanism, ed. P. J. Ucko et al. London: Duckworth. Frankfort, Henri 1950 Town Planning in Ancient Town Planning Mesopotamia. Review 21: 99-115. Jeremias, Joachim 1958 HeiligengrTiberin Jesu Umwelt. GSttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. King, Leslie J. 1969 Statistical Analysis in Geography. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Leone, M. P. 1973 Archaeology as the Science of Technology: Mormon Town Plans and Fences. Pp. 125-50 in Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, ed. C. L. Redman. New York: Wiley. Marks, A. E. 1971 Settlement Patterns and Intrasite Variability in the Central Negev, Israel. American Anthropology 73: 1237-44. Meyers, E., Kraabel, A. T., and Strange, J. F. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-1972. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 42. Durham: Duke University and American Schools of Oriental Research. Parker, J. E. 1967 Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome. Journal of Roman Studies 57: 80-89. Redman, C. L. Research and Theory in Current 1973 Archaeology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. South, S. 1977

Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic. Ucko, P. J., Tringham, R., and Dimbleby, G. W., eds. 1972 Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth. Wilkinson, John Ancient Jerusalem, Its Water Sup1974 Palestine ply and Population. Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 106: 33-51.

The

of Development

PALESTINIAN ARCHEOL as

a

Discipline

Lawrence E. Toombs

By focusing on what is distinctive of archeology, namely its excavation method, and not on its relationshipto other disciplinessuch as biblical studies, linguistics, and history, a clearer definitionof archeology as a discipline can be achieved. On the basis of this assumption, three major themes that characterizethe development of Palestinian archeology since the late 1800s are isolated: the intention of the excavators, the field methodology, and the type of data gathered.Refinements in each of these concerns have shaped the evolution of Palestinian archeology and created the dilemmaswith which the modernexcavator must cope.

The operativewords in the title of this paper are "as a discipline." If archeologyis to be understoodas an autonomous scholarly enterprise, its character as a discipline must be defined in terms of those featuresdistinctiveto archeologyin contrastto, or in relation to, the other disciplines which abut and in part overlapit. The essentialqualityof archeology,in which its natureas a disciplinemustbe sought, is that it derives its data from the processof excavation.This basic fact is often forgotten or thrust aside as archeologistsattempt to define their enterprisein more grandioseand less earthyterms.Whenarcheologyis being itself, and not masquerading as a branchof history, linguistics,religion, or culturalanthropology,it is alwaysas Sir Mortimer Wheeler described it, "archeology from the earth."

This is not to say that the archeologistought not to be actively engagedin studyingand developingthe historical and cultural significanceof what he uncovers.It is, rather,to insist that his unique identity as an archeologistdoes not reside in or depend upon such studies. The Ingredients of Archeology

It is fromthe earth,thatis, fromthe exigencies of the excavationprocess,that the ingredientswhichmake up the disciplineof archeologyarise. The first of these ingredientsis the intentionof the excavators,for the kind of data which they wish to recoverwill determinethe designof the expedition,that is, whatit

does with, andto, the earth.The second ingredient in the discipline of archeologyis its excavationmethod.In the practice of field archeology this boils downto the fundamentalquestion of controlin boththe horizontalandthe verticaldimensions,that is, the dimensions of spaceand time.Controlis built into the diggingprocessnot only by the size and arrangementof the unitsof the excavation,and the meansby whichthe sequential development within these units is determined,but also by the number and quality of the eyes that observe and the hands that work. Control, then, is exercised by the combinationof techniqueand supervision. A third dimension of the allimportant problem of control is the recordingtechniquesemployedboth in the field and in the field laboratory. Recordingoften is representedas an aspect of archeology distinct from excavation.The traumasof area supervisors arise from this false distinction. They are hindered from "real archeology"(i.e., digging)by perpetual slaveryto the field notebook.However, if the results of the "real archeology" are not meticulouslyrecordedin notes, in drawings,and in photographs,control is irreparablylost at the moment the expedition breaks its camp and leaves the field. A thirdingredientin the discipline of archeologyis the kindof data which is gathered:(1) what is consideredto be materialfor the recordand (2) what is regarded as material for the dump. Something,obviously,must be thrown

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

89

awaywiththe discardedearth,butwhat is to be extractedfromit andretainedas archeologicalevidenceis determinedby the intention of the excavatorand in turn determineshis methodology. in The fourth ingredient archeologyas a disciplineis the method of publication of the results. The technicalitiesof publicationraisea host of problems,not the least of which is how the observedfacts of the excavation are to be distinguishedfrom the interpretations that the excavator placeson them. These may rangefrom the highly probable,throughthe possible to the fanciful, and occasionally even to the grotesque.Problemsother than the how of the publicationare inevitablypresent.To what degree does the data recoveredat the site demand comparativestudiesand some form of historical or cultural conclusions? Shouldthe final publicationtry to do it all or leave loose ends for others to workon and to criticizethe authorsfor failing to do so? It is undoubtedlythe magnitude of these problems, rather than laziness or unconcern,that accounts for the abysmallypoor publication recordof Palestinianarcheologists. Developmentof the Discipline An outline of the development of Palestinianarcheologyas a discipline could be given in the form of a catalog of majorexpeditionsand theirachievements,or as a roll call of the heroesand heroineswho laboredin the field in the days whenthereweregiantsin the land. Ratherthan follow eitherof these patterns,thispaperwill attemptto indicate the developmentsthat havetakenplace in the various ingredientswhich have been identifiedas composingthe disciplineof archeology.It will not, therefore, be a history of the archeological enterprisesin Palestine, but rather a seriesof reflectionson thathistoryfrom the point of view indicatedin this introduction. When the period under examination began, the intention of the excavators was in many respects above reproach. The intention expressed in report after report was to find out all they could learn of the cultures that had occupied the respective site, period by period, from its beginning to its end. Their problem was that the techniques which they possessed did not permit them to bring that intention to reality. Large areas were opened without the 90

subunitsnecessaryfor horizontalcon- (a description which does less than trol and with verticalcontrol virtually justice to Pitt-Riverswhowas probably absent. The supervisory staff was its originator),provided an essential, hopelesslyinadequateto makethe kind basic tool for controlwithinan excavaof detailed and continuous observa- tion. tions which are now deemedessential. A companiondevelopmentto the A registry was usually kept for ar- working out of a method of stratitifacts, but field recordingwas largely graphiccontrolis the increasinginterest confinedto the diary of the excavator in the earthas an archeologicaldatum. and his architecturalplans. The data At its simplest level this implies the gatheredwas, in consequence,mainly identificationand separationof distinct artifactualand architectural.Whatwas soil layers encounteredin the excavaobviouslyandfatallymissingwas an in- tion. This is, however,only the necesterest in the earth itself. The dirt was sary preliminaryto an inquiryinto the generallyregardedas an obstructionto originof the layers,whetherby the acbe removedratherthan as an objectof tion of natureor the activity of man, study in its own right. Sections, when into the sourcefromwhichthe earthof drawn,tendedto be highlyschematicor the layerscame, and above all into the to consistof architecturalunits,mainly functionwhich the layer fulfills in the walls, often withoutfloors, mysterious- contextwhereit is found-whether, for ly suspended in space where the example, it is leveling fill, subfloor despised and neglected earth layers makeup, or destruction debris. The should have been. With the discarded position of the layer in relationto the soil went the seeds, shells, small bones, structureswhich it overlies, underlies, lithics, and other minute bits of or is contiguouswith came to acquirea evidenceof the life of the people who fundamentalsignificancein sortingout occupied the site. Publicationswere, the often complexand interlockingsetherefore,mainlyplansof buildingsand quenceswithina multilevelsite. Interestin soil layersinevitablyinpicturesof objects with prose descripvolvedcloser examinationof their contions. In the yearswhichfollowed, three tents. Dry sifting procedureswere exmajordevelopmentsalteredthe picture, pandedandput into moreextensiveuse, admittedlysomethingof a caricature, and wet sievingtechniquesbeganto apthat has just been drawn.The first of pear. these was the forging of a reasonably What has been said so far is a bare reliablechronologicalinstrumentby the accountof developmentswithfewcredit development,throughthe monumental bylines to specific archeologists or workof Petrie,Fisher,and Albright,of archeological expeditions. The overa coherent pottery chronology. The sight is made deliberatelyand without developmentof this essential instru- apology. The exercise of assigningan ment, however, had a side effect of origin and an originatorto the various dubious value. It tended to shift the advancesin the disciplineof archeology center of interestfrom the culturalto is an adventurein futility, for in the the chronological. Archeological development of archeology, as in reports became accounts of the se- history in general, nothingbegins, but quenceof culturesand their dates ac- each developmenthas its antecedents cording to the system of ceramic and forerunners.In a general way it chrondlogyand a tyingof theseinto the may be said that the period before general history of the region. Not a WorldWarI was a time whenthe probgreat deal was said, or could be said, lems and inadequacies of existing about the cultures themselves. archeological method were revealed by Somewhat later in time, but experience. The period between the logically a companion development to wars was a time of experimental search the pottery chronology, came the for new methods. And the period after introduction of systematic horizontal World War II witnessed the general acand vertical controls by means of a grid ceptance of the principles of control and of defined squares (usually 5 x 5 m, but attempts to refine them and to make the size has no sanctity) and the preser- them more applicable to the specific vation, study, and subsequent drawing problems of specific sites. of balks around and between the squares. This technique, commonly Further Refinements known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method Three developments can be seen arising

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

from the refining process. First, the The Future changes in methodology made neces- From the beginning of systematic sary a rethinkingof the systemof note- archeologicalworkin Palestineboththe taking.The diarysystem,in vogueup to cultural and chronological concerns and throughthe 1940s,vanishedor slip- were present,and at no stage has either ped into the background.The diariesof of them been submerged.I have sugearly excavators make fascinating gested, however, that particularly readingwith their quaint admixtureof among American archeologists the weatherreports,observationson local chronologicalinteresttendedto become customs, archeological observations, dominant. One result of the broadenand mildcomplaintsaboutthe heat, the ing of the data base was to swing infood, and the quality of the workmen. terestbacktowardthe descriptionin the In the 1930sand 1940swhenthe diaries most inclusive terms possible of the became more "scientific" and, con- culturewhich occupiedthe site at any sequently,less interesting,it was still given pointin time. The implicationsof exceedinglydifficultfor anyonebut the this changein emphasishave yet to be diarist himself to follow the course of completely faced. It necessitates,at a the excavationof any particularfeature. minimum, extensive horizontal exThe diary gave place to a recording posureof large areasof the site, which, systemin whichall the observationsand combinedwith the increasingcare and tentative interpretationsof a single consequentslowingdownof the excavafeature were recorded on the same tion, involvesa long and costly operation. sheet. It may require more judicious as the of the Second, complexity work increasedthe number of super- selection of the site to be excavatedso visory personnelgrew correspondingly. that the particularculture which it is Third,and more important,as the desired to study may be more quickly kinds of data gathered multiplied, it and more extensivelyreached.It may became obvious that the day of the involve a more problem-centeredaparcheologicalgeniuswho managedand proach to excavationin which the exinterpretedevery aspect of the excava- cavatorsset themselvesto solvea single tion was over. One of the most signifi- problem or a set of closely related cant aspects of the last two decadesis problems. Whateverthe implicationsof the the degree to which archeology has become a team projectratherthan the culturalinterestmay be for work on a given site, that interest has certainly provinceof individualgenius. drivenhomethe realizationthatthe site to this is the Integral development increasinglyimportantrole within the is not an isolated unit. It lived in a archeologicalteam taken by scientific dynamic relationshipwith its physical specialists,both in the field and in their environmentand with the humancomhome-basedlaboratories.There is vir- munities with which it could comtually no limit to the contributions municate.Its culturecannot be underwhichscientificspecialistscan make to stood except in relationto the physical the interpretationof archeologicaldata, and humanenvironmentin whichit exand to identifythe scientificspecialists isted.The plethoraof archeologicalsurwho may be involvedand the natureof veys that has eruptedin recentyears is their contributions to the under- the fruit of this realization. In some standingof an archeologicalsite would respectsarcheologyhas swungfull cirinvolve an overly long excursuswhich cle, and a new generationof travelers would, in the end, remain incomplete. Two problems, as yet only partially solved, are, however, created for the field archeologist by the necessity of working with scientific specialists. How can the results of their work be integrated into the final excavation report so that they do not appear at the end as a series of erudite but undigested appendices? What modifications in field technique are necessary to recover the data required by the specialist in the form which makes it most useful to him?

has risen in the place of Burkhardt, Robinson, and Gubrin. But both the implements and the intention have changed dramatically. The modern surveyor-traveler, with transit, collecting bag and microscope, is not merely identifying and plotting the location of sites. He is mapping the spread of cultures and attempting to determine from the data available to him why, given the geography of ancient times, the patterns are as he finds them to be. The way in which Palestinian

archeology has been described might leave the erroneousimpressionthat it developed in a vacuum, uncontaminated by any outside influences. The reverse is closer to the truth. Palestinianarcheologyfrom the beginning has reflected, adopted, and profited by developments in other geographicalareas. To cite only three obvious illustrations:(1) Sir Flinders Petrie was an Egyptologist;(2) the German expeditions, active in the period before and after World War I, used the services of classical archeologists;and (3) the basis of the method of stratigraphicanalysis was developedin Britain.The great debate among American and European archeologistswhich centers in what is called "the new archeology"has just touched the fringes of archeological work in Israel. However,if things run true to form, a selectiveprocesswill go on in whichelementsarisingfromthat debate will be taken over, adapted, modified,and appliedto the particular problemsraised by multilevelsites in Israel. It is fashionable to look with tolerant amusementat the pioneersof Palestinianarcheologyand to hold up their inadequacies and errors to ridicule.In theirdefenseit mustbe said that theirheartswere almostalwaysin the right place. What they wished to achieve was a historical and cultural of the site on whichthey understanding workedand the placewhichit occupied in the geographical,social, andpolitical context in which it was set. In general, one cannotquarrelwiththe intentionof these early archeologists.But between intentionand capabilitytherewas often a yawningchasm. The developmentof Palestinianarcheologyas a discipline may be regardedas the gradualbridging, by the combinedefforts of many researchers,of this gap betweenintention and capability. This study has been an attempt to identify some of the principal beams, girders, and cables that have gone into the construction of the bridge. The techniques and instruments available to contemporary archeologists do not completely close the gap, but they do make it perceptibly narrower. In retrospect, it may be fairer to describe archeology not as a discipline but as the outline of a discipline in search of clearer definition.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

91

OUTSTANDING SELECTIONSIN THEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA Volume H (E-J) (Revised) "Promisesto be without a doubt the 1 RN k I JONAI. best comprehensiveBible It is available. encyclopedia up-toI Ol f Df date, readable,accurate,and wellillustrated."- WalterA. Elwell,Book ReviewEditor, Today Christiani.ty in February Cloth, $29.95, Available BEYOND BELIEF By Richard Holloway "Thegreat Christiantraditionof intelligent, pastoralreflectionon the faith is still alive. There is much good sense in this book, the work of a pastor of inquiringand criticalmind, thinking through his faithin the light ofdaily Lewis and experience."-MichaelNovk-"If Blamiresget to you, you'll appreciateHolloway a lot, as anotherworthy exponent faith. ofrmainstream -James Packer,RegentCollege Cloth, $8.95 HERE AM I A Believer's Reflection on God

Ilk,

ByAdrioKoniig "...one of the most studies of the doctrineof God to

inspiring have been publishedin recentyears."--HendrikusBerkhof Paper,$8.95 HOMOSEXUALS IN THE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP By DavidAtkinson "...a significantcontribution...it is a rarecombinationof theological thinking, and biblicalcommitment, contemporary understandingand compassionatepastoralconcern." -John Stott,RectorEmeritus,All SoulsChurch,London Paper,$4.95

W- r AND

"P

IRCCZM

ForthcomingTitles:

BARTH/BULTMANN

LETTERS, 192-x966 Translatedby

GeoffyW.nromilcy

Cloth, $xs.95,February THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN LATIN AMERICA Colonialism to Liberation By Enrique Dussel TranslatedbyAlan Neely Cloth, $17.95,April

92

MATTHEW A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art By Robert Gundry Cloth, $22.9, February OLD TESTAMENT SURVEY The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament By William SanfordLaSor, DavidAllan Hubbard, Frederic Win.Bush Cloth, $17.95,April THE EVANGELICAL FAITH, Volume HIII Theology of the Spirit By Helmut Thielicke by Tranmlated W. Geo rey Bromiley Cloth, $I7.95,March FOUNDATIONS OF DOGMATICS, Volume I By Otto Weber

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD The Marriage Covenant and the Discipline of Divorce ByDavidAtkinson A thorough and timely evaluationof the biblicalteaching on marriage,examiningin particulardivorce and remarriage. Paper, $6.95 ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue By Badru D. Katerrega and David W. Shenk A candid and open discussionbetween a Muslim and a Christianconcerningbasic questions and issues of their respectivereligions. Paper,$7.95 THE CHURCH BETWEEN TEMPLE AND MOSQUE ByJ. H. Bavinck A scholarlybut highly readablecomparativesurvey of religionswith emphasison how Christianityrelatesto other religions. Paper,$6.95 THE BIBLE AND HIGHER CRITICISM Boer BHarry RIL OriginallytitledAbovetheBattle, this book arguesfor the legitimacyof Biblicalcriticism."Lucidlywritten, cogently argued, and intellectuallyand spirituallysatisfying. -Ralph Martin,FullerTheological SeminaryPaper,$3.95 LEARNING JESUS CHRIST THROUGH THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM By Karl Barth An informativeintroductionto an important,though largely unknown, Calvinisticdocument of the Reformation. Paper,$4.95 I BELIEVE IN SATAN'S DOWNFALL By Michael Green This latest book in the "I Believe"seriespresentsa freshlook at the biblicalaccountof evil and the possibilityof its defeat. Paper,$5.95

THE NEW

CENTURY BIBLE

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

CEN

COMIMMENNTARY

in Balanced andup-to-date both itsscholarship and its reflectionof thecontemporary4Ii

j pi

relevanceof the biblicaltext, this standardcommentarybased on the . RSV is being issued in softcover. $5.95-$z2.95.Il

Recent releases:

THE GOSPEL OF GALATIANS Donald Guthrie MARK EPHESIANS Hgb Anderson TEE ACTS OF THE C. LeslieMitton APOSTLES William Neil COLOSSIANS AND ROMANS PHILEMON MatthewBlack Ralph P. Martin For more complete descriptionson these and other recent publications,write for a copy of the latest Theologist Catalog. xaminationcopies of most publicationsare availableto qualifiedprofessors.Contact the TextbookDepartmentat Eerdmansfor more details. Pricessubjectto change.

Translated by

Darrell L. Guder Cloth, $zs.oo, January

I

Atyour

172 Im~

bookstore WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING

CO.

ss EFFERSONAVE.S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS,MICHIGAN49503

where

is going? ISRAELI ARCHEOLOGY David Ussishkin

Israeli archeology has also been the scene of controversy,and the currentgeneration is characterizedby similar divergent views. But the issues have focused on method and strategyrather than the theory of the discipline. For in Israel, "biblicalarcheology" is still vibrantand thriving.

This study offers some general comments on the present state of archeology in Israel. I shall limit myself to archeology of the historical period-the period of the Old Testament-starting from the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennia B.c. and continuing to the Hellenistic era. First let me note the change of generations among Israel's practicing archeologists. For almost 30 years after the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, there was a generation of excavators who dominated the field. Their names are prominent. They were very active; they promoted archeology in Israel, conducting many excavations and making important discoveries. The weight of this generation, however, is now fast dimishing. Foremost, I mention the untimely death of Yohanan Aharoni and the divergence into politics of Yigael Yadin. Aharoni in Tel Aviv and Yadin in Jerusalem each built a school characterized by its archeological methods, each conducted a series of excavations, each had a following of disciples. These two archeologists, with their schools and their disciples, and with the deep controversies between them, dominated the field of biblical archeology in Israel throughout the last decade and indeed before that.

Today, there is rapidly emerging a new generation of archeologists, most of them disciples and students of the first generation. The archeologists of this new generation are gaining a decisive position in Israel; their work carries weight as they conduct numerous excavations, and one finds them now in all the archeological institutions of the country-the universities, the museums, the government of Antiquities and Department Museums. My second observation concerns the designation "Israeli archeology." When we talk about Israeli archeology, we suggest the existence of a certain group with a crystalized discipline-a special school. Well, maybe-I say, maybe-in the past one could have spoken of such a school, such a discipline, called Israeli archeology. I doubt very much if we can, in fact I think we cannot, talk about Israeli archeology today. There are more than 200 active archeologists in Israel; they represent different archeological schools, different disciplines, different concepts, and different excavation methods. The situation in Israel is comparable to the situation in the United States, with its many archeologists belonging to different schools and con-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

93

cepts; I do not think we can describe them as belongingto and formingone school of "Americanarcheology."In discussingdirectionsand developments of archeologyin Israel, I believe it is very difficultto generalize.The best I can do is to expressmy personalviews on the main developmentsin biblical archeology in Israel today. (I intentionally say "biblicalarcheology"and shall elaborateon it later.) However,I believethat my own viewsaresharedby many other Israeli archeologists,especially the membersof the Tel Aviv University excavation teams at Tel Lachishand Tel Aphek, with whom I have very close workingrelationships, as well as others at the HebrewUniversityand elsewhere. What about developmentsin field archeologicaltechnique?I wantto start by expressingthe belief that from now on the stressshouldbe on slow digging and limited excavation, aimed at the achievementof high quality.The scale should be much smaller and the pace much slowerthan in the past. Involved in the matter of pace is anotherprinciple, hardly applied in previous decades,that virtuallyin everyexcavation of a biblicalmoundone shoulddig only part of the mound,half at most. And within the part dug, one should leave half, or at least a substantialportion, of each important complex or structureor target of whateverkind related to the mound so that in the future, maybe in another generation, otherarcheologistscan come andcheck the work and conclusionswith better methods. Second, concerningtechnique:what about new developmentsin excavation methods, in controlling the data uncovered, in publication?Here again I stress that the opinions are my own; othersin Israeldisagree.Let me quote, for example, the opinion of my colleague Anson Rainey from his article on methods of excavation written mainly with reference to the methods used at Shechem and Gezer ("In Archeology Think Square," Eternity 26.12 [December, 1975]). Rainey differentiates between two types of excavators: those who make finds in excavation with no talk about methods and those who talk about methods while making few finds. He continues, "... the proof of the pudding is in the eating; the more the talk, the less have been concrete

94

Above: view of the excavationof the Canaanitelevels at Aphek-Antipatris. at Lachish. Left:recentIsraeliexcavations

results"(p. 56). Raineythenstressesthe need to concentrateon digging rather than on thinking about digging methods; this fits with his definition of archeologywhere the stress is put on quantity rather than on quality: "... the proper goal of archaeology ...

is to revealas much as possible about the materiallife of ancientman." As I statedabove,therearesharpdifferences of opinionhere. In some Israeliexpeditionsnow in the field, a new concept of excavation methods has slowly been crystalized. The conceptinvolvesa combinationof methods from various sources into a new methodology.On the one handwe see principlesdrawnfrom the WheelerKenyon approach, as developed at Samaria and Jericho and later at Shechem and Gezer. Here one works withan eye to the verticalas well as the horizontal;attention is given to sections, and more care is expendedon

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

detailsandrecordingresults.I stressespecially the use of sections; it is now common knowledge, I think, that without them it is very difficult to understandthe detailedstratificationof a site. Making plans of the sections becomesa significantfactorin planning the digging strategy, interpretingthe finds, and publishingthe results. On the other hand, this new methodologicalconcept draws a lot from what is known as the "architectural method," developedin Israel and on many Israeli excavationssince the work at Hazor in the 1950s. Here the mainstressis on architecturallevels and on understandingthe architecture of buildings;the attemptis to work in completearchitecturalunits, to understand what the whole buildingor the whole room looked like and meant, ratherthanto concentrateon a relatively narrow portion of it. Again much care is taken, and a stress is laid on

restorationof pottery vessels, mainly pottery retrievedfrom the destruction levelsof the site. The emphasisis on the typological study and publication of complete vessel forms; the many random small sherdsare given less attention, becausethey will alwaysincludea large proportionof strays from earlier layers. With these three concerns,the care oververticalsections,the endeavor to study complete architecturalunits, andthe effortsinvolvedin restoringpottery, the process of excavation slows downandspreadsoverlongerperiodsof time. Anotherdirectionin recentIsraeli archeologicalexpeditionsis the excavation of one central mound combined with the studyof its surroundings.This regionalapproachintendsespeciallyto understand better the archeological context, to comprehend the whole region from an archeological and historicalpoint of view. Once one expandsto conductwork in the area,one prolongsthe workbasedon a particular moundfor manyyears. I wouldsay the concept of a regional study began at BeershebaunderYohananAharoni.As examplesnow we can cite the Hebrew University'swork at Yoqneam,the Tel Michal excavationsnorth of Tel Aviv, the excavationsat Tel Aphek,andfinally Tel Lachish,wherea regionalsurvey was begun in 1978. Parallel to the changes in Israeli expeditions,one can observea process of changein the methodscharacterizing American expeditions working in Israel. In recent years, many of these expeditionshaveadoptedelementsconsideredto be Israeli 10 to 15 yearsago. This process,that some Israeliexpeditions moved toward the American methodsandthat Americanexpeditions movedtowardIsraeliones, has resulted in the fact that in some cases at least thereis verylittledifferencein methods, concepts, or procedures. This is one of the main causes of another very important development, cooperation between Israeli and American archeologists and institutions. Americans work on Israeli

digs and vice versa; more important, working in the profession of quite a few excavationprojectsinvolve archeology.I thinkthat this is responsifruitfulpartnershipbetweenIsraeliand ble for a largepartof the motivationof American institutions. As examples, Israeli archeologists.At this point I thereis Tel Michal,wherea team from have to add a note of clarification:our Tel Aviv UniversityunderZeev Herzog special interest in the biblical period has worked with James Muhly of the does not mean that we neglect other University of Pennsylvania, with periods in the archeology of the BrighamYoung University, and with country, such as the Chalcolithicand the University of Minnesota. Then Islamic periods. Everythingmust be there is the Tel Batashidig, wherethe scrupulously excavated in the proHebrewUniversitycooperateswith the fessional manner mentioned above. Baptist TheologicalSeminaryof New Referring to the other positions Orleans.Third, Tel Aphek, whereTel describedelsewherein this issue of BA, Aviv University works together with I feel more sympathywith the options Cornell University, Rice University, expressedby Lance than with Toombs and Allegheny College. Finally, Tel and what he says about Palestinian Lachish,whereour team fromTel Aviv archeologyas a discipline.In conversaworkswith Song Nai Rhee and North- tion after the symposium,I also found west Christian College from Eugene, that he agreeswithme thatwhathe said OR. As an Israeliarcheologist,I would wouldfit archeologyin Palestineas well like to stressthat this is a very positive as in Africa, or in Armenia,or in Fiji, tendency;such cooperationshould be or anywhere else; according to him there is nothing specific which really encouraged. Now I turn brieflyto my last sub- connectsus with this particularpart of ject, the connectionbetweenarcheology the world and its special history. To summarize, I think that in in Palestine(Israel)and Biblehistory.I shall not enterinto all the polemics,but Israel we are trying to develop fieldwilljust try to describebrieflythe situa- work on a technicaland a purelyprotion as it appearsto be in Israel. We fessional level, but whateverwe do is have, on the one hand, a very serious deeply rooted in the special historical developmentof disciplines which are and biblical interest we share. And I purely "archeological,"used in the wouldclaim thatbecauseof this way of process of excavation.One exampleis working,and this connectionwith and the flotation work done by botanists. inclinationtowardbiblicalhistory and The excavation proper is purely a the Old Testament, significant contributions have been made by professional,technicalprocess. On the other hand, it is very dif- archeologyin Israelfor a betterunderficult for me to imaginearcheologyin standingof the problematicaspectsof the Holy Land in the biblical period the Old Testament.Let me only cite the without connectionto the Old Testa- example of the Israelite conquestand ment and without connection to the settlementin Canaan, a complex and historical records, the historical difficult set of problemsregularlyadsources,and the historicalbackground. dressedby articles in the BA (see, for Personally, I cannot imagine myself example, BA 39 [1976]:54-76). In reworkingat a site like Lachishwithout cent years, on this set of problemsand being involvedwith the deep historical on many others,archeologicalresearch and biblicalconnectionsof the site. To in Israel has producedindependentinIsraeli archeologists, this connection formationand thrownnew light. with the Old Testament, with the biblical sources, is deeply emotional, and it gives us a special satisfaction, perhaps even special happiness, when

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

95

International

The

Institute for

SMesopotam Area

Studies

Home

Seminar

Program LANGUAGE

ARCHAEOLOGY

RELIGION

HISTORY

LITERATURE

ART

CATALOG: FORDETAILS ANDA FREECOURSE NAME STREET CITY STATE

ZIP

HOME SEMINAR PROGRAM

-•

POB787 MALIBU,CA 90265

96

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

American

Biblical Archeology in

Perspective

H.

Darell

Lance

biblicalarcheologycan be tracedto at least three factors.The first of these is the death,in rapidsuccession,of an unusual numberof figuresof centralimportanceto the field. It is individual personalitieswho give to any field of study its shape, impetus,and direction. Throughtheir own geniusor lack of it, their ability to attract students and adherents, to advocate persuasively their insightsand opinions,they determine the directionand set the level of vitalityof a field. Since 1970American biblical archeology and Palestinian archeologyhavelost Paul Lapp,Nelson Glueck, G. Ernest Wright, and of courseW. F. Albright.The senseof discontinuityhas beenheightenedby other losses in what is after all an international discipline: Roland de Vaux, Yohanan Aharoni, and most recently KathleenKenyon.But it is the former list whoseloss has causedthe most dislocation for the present and futureof Americanbiblicalarcheology,most especiallyWrightand Albright,for they werethe bubblingpots of ideasandprojects and enthusiasmwhich attracted studentsand gave the field its sense of excitementand vitality. The secondcausefor the prevailing sense of uncertaintyand unclarityin in Biblical Archeology Uncertainty The presentsense of loss of directionin biblicalarcheologyhas been the end of

The title of my article, "American BiblicalArcheologyin Perspective,"is a bit misleading.A true perspectiveinvolvesseeingsomethingin its historical development,and the full recapitulation of that storyis beyondthe scopeof this paper.Moreover,the beginningsof the discipline recently have been surveyedby G. ErnestWright(1970)in'the Glueck Festschriftand by William G. Dever (1974) in his WinslowLectures, althoughthey admittedlycome to quite differentconclusions.Rather, we shall concentrateon the presentstate of the The discipline of biblical field and make some suggestionsabout is its future directions.This archeology is in a period of justified, I believe, becauseapproach of the parreassessmentfollowing the death ticular momentin which the discipline of many of its primaryexponents finds itself. The word "crisis"is much it here; and the assertion by others that overworked,and I shall avoid but certainlyto describethe period as Syro-Palestinianarcheology is one of hesitationor uncertaintyor rea separateand distinct field of evaluationof goals and purposeswould be justified.And if this presentationhas study. In the face of this vigorous a constructive contributionto make, it declarationof independence, would be in helping to clear the cobbiblical archeology must webs of confusionfrom the presentso that we move into the futurewith certainly rethink its agenda and renewedmay confidence in biblical become clearerabout its place archeologyas a viable and important as a subdisciplineof biblical focus of study.

studies, but reportsof its demise are definitelypremature.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

97

that era of biblicaltheologywhichconfidently spoke of the acts of God in history,that is, in the historyavailable to the historianand the archeologist. The story of this developmenthas been told by BrevardChilds(1970) and need not be reviewedhere. The issues here are complexand I do not wish to risk distortion by oversimplification; Wright, for example, was a sophisticatedthinker,and particularly in the writingstowardthe end of his life (e.g. 1971)was carefulto disavowany claim that the factualeventsof history can prove, or disprove, positions of faith. Nevertheless, in some of his earlier writingsand particularlyin his own personalattitude,therewas a subconscious or implicit message conveyed, namely, that in discerningthe facts of biblicalhistoryone was coming verynearto the visiblefootprintsof the divine.This communicateditself to his students,again not by any overt statement but by the obvious unity of the person who would speak passionately on one occasionof God as the God of history and on another occasion with equal passion of the need to study the archeologyand historyof Palestineand the ancient Near East. What came across was not a simplisticequationof

The third factor which makes this a time for uncertaintyand confusion in biblical archeologyis the information explosion.In the last 15 yearsthosedisciplineswhichintersectto formbiblical archeology--Bible, Syro-Palestinian archeology and epigraphy, Assyriology, and Egyptology, to name the most familiar-have not only themselves been growing by leaps and bounds but have been joined by new specialties and subspecialties:paleoethnography,paleobotanyand paleobiology, archeometrics,etc. Scarcely hadwe absorbedthe newsof Eblawhen word came of the finds of Kuntillet Ajrudwhichat one strokedoubledthe corpusof Hebrewepigraphicmaterials (Pettinato1976;Matthiae1977;Meshel 1977).The mountainof excavatedbut unpublishedmaterialcontinuesto grow at a rateapproachingthe scandalous.In 1968 the Book List publishedby the Society for Old TestamentStudy contained only nine titles in the section "Archaeologyand Epigraphy";in the 1978 list there are exactly three times that number. The annual survey of Semiticepigraphypublishedin thejournalSyriaby JavierTeixidornowrunsto 50 pages. A quick classificationof the Historie with Heilsgeschichte but a journalssummarizedin Old Testament sense of the towering importanceof Abstractsshows that thereare at least archeologicaland historical research. 15 journals devoted exclusively to One studiedarcheologyunderWright, biblical or Palestinianarcheologyand poring over report volumes and con- another20 or so in immediatelyrelated structing typologies of 8th-century areas: the Journal of Near Eastern storagejars, poweredby a kindof elec- Studies, Iraq, Journal of Cuneiform etc. For the biblical tricity,an implicitsenseof urgencythat Studies, was neverdefinedbutwas unmistakably archeologist,all these are of course in there. Needless to say, this made additionto the growinglist of journals effec- concernedwith biblicalliterature.The Wrighta teacherof extraordinary tiveness, as the essays in this issue of day has perhapsalready passed when BA attest. But in the last years of any single individualcan hope to conWright's life and since his death, the trol even the main featuresof whatwe problem of the relation of faith to have traditionally called biblical history has shown itself more intract- archeology.EvenKurtGallingwho has able thansomeof us hadsupposed.This grownup withthe disciplineis forcedto

Information Explosion

development, which we have no time to expand upon here, has grounded some of the electrical current, and the sense of excitement and urgency that attracts students and infuses the field with dynamism is undeniably attenuated. To the extent that it results in a cooling of interest in archeology and other technical historical disciplines, it is of concern not just to theologians but to all who participate in the field of Near Eastern studies.

admit in the Foreword to his revised edition of the Biblisches Reallexikon that what he did alone 40 years ago in the 1937 edition could no longer be carried out by a single author, and so the new edition is the product of what he calls "ein... archaologisches Team" (Galling 1977: v). In archeology the primary material never ceases to grow; in the total picture each excavation report is an eternal datum. Moreover, there is in archeology a body of reviews

Bronze Age, that will pull togetherin completebut criticalsynthesisthe present state of knowledge?No matterthat the field is rapidly evolving;one can always revise. Such works are desperatelyneeded. There is another aspect to the problemof the informationexplosion. As the technicalloreof archeologyitself grows, it is not only increasingly unmanageablefor thosewhosefull-time specialty it is, but, as already mentioned, it is all the more unmanageable for thosewhosepointof departureis the Bible. Someone who wishes an archeologicalanswer to a particular questiongrowingout of the biblicaltext will likely be disappointedby those works to whichhe or she will be most inclinedto turnfirst,the commentaries. The Anchor Bible is a good case in point.Its originalrationalewasto bring to bearon the translationof the text the effect of the archeologicalexplosion. And yet the realia of archeologywere largely ignored.A numberof the Old Testament volumes had appeared before even a few photographs were included. Only with the most recent volumes, those by Campbell on Ruth (1975) and the unbelievable magnum opus on the Song of Songs by Pope (1977), have the archeological aspects of the series received fuller expression. Or to state the problem from a different perspective, take the Books of Kings. Perhaps of all the books of the Old Testament, Kings lends itself most readily to commentary from an

98

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

and criticalliteraturewhichis often as importantas the original publication. And for some reason,thereareveryfew major synthetic works that are both critical and comprehensive,for example, in Palestinianarcheology,the field of most lively interest to biblical archeologists.All too often the syntheticworksthatdo exist are influenced by the realitiesof the marketplace so

that even the useful Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Avi-Yonah 1975-79) clearly

dares not be too technicalfor fear of alienating the general reader. At the other extreme we have somethinglike Busink's700-pagequartovolumeon the temple of Solomon, a work so massive as to intimidatemost scholars whose primary interest is biblical (Busink 1970).Wherearethe volumes,Palestine in the Iron Age or Palestine in the

archeologicalpoint of view. Yet if one ruptingtap on the shoulderfrom the mentioned.)The problemis not in the looks through the most recent major biblical scholar, inquiring if the juxtapositionof the word biblicalwith commentarieson Kings, one looks in specialist has found something of in- the word archeology;rather,the problem is in the differingviews that the vain for a single photograph,a single terest to biblicalstudies. in most cases or or generaland learnedpublicshave about drawing illustration, the Bible itself. It surely is not the even for a single map. True, Noth's Reactionsto BiblicalArcheology BiblischerKommentarvolume (1967) The most recentvassal to rebelagainst responsibility of biblical archeology to educatethe American was nevercompletedand only the cor- the biblical hegemony is Palestinian singlehandedly there is such a thing as of the that itself. As the "Land Alte of fascicle Wilrthwein's public archeology responding TestamentDeutschwork(1977)has ap- Bible" or the "Holy Land," Palestine critical study of the Bible and critical peared;but as one readseitherof these always has been and will remain the studyof the worldthat producedthe Bible. The misconceptionthat manypeoworks, there is no indicationthat the center of focus for biblical completedwhole is intendedeven to be archeologists.As Dever (1974: 6-12) ple certainly have about the term illustrated, much less discuss the has shown, much of the impetus for biblicalarcheologyis no more an arguarcheologyrelevantto the book(cf. also Palestinianarcheologyin recent years ment for abandoningthe term than for and much of its personnelhave been abandoningthe termsbiblicalhistoryor Gray 1970). Thereis yet a thirdproblemgrow- drawn from the ranks of biblical biblical religion. The term biblical ing out of the informationexplosion.It scholars.But the explosionof informa- archeologyin the traditionof Albright goes back to the definitionof biblical tion makes it increasinglydifficult for is one that is fullygroundedin empirical archeologythat was advocatedby its those who gain their bread from the study; it is as critical a disciplineas greatest and perhaps,if one takes his teachingof Bible(or, one mightequally modernbiblicalresearchitself. If there definition seriously, its only practi- add, the teachingof anthropology,an- are those who are unawareof this and tioner, William F. Albright. At one cient history, or any other generaldis- who consequentlyraisea condescending point he writes: "Biblical archeology cipline)to keep abreastof the flood of eyebrow when they hear the phrase coversall the landsmentionedin the Bi- new materials, and we need more biblicalarcheologist,then that-as the ble, and is thus coextensivewith the specialists in Palestinian archeology. sayinggoes-is theirproblem.Theterm cradle of civilization.This region ex- Thus far Dever'scase is persuasive.We biblical archeology is not only an tends from the westernMediterranean who consider ourselves biblical honorableone, it is, as I shall argue to India, and from southernRussia to archeologistscan only profit from the shortly,a necessaryone. A secondobjectionraisedby Dever Ethiopia and the Indian Ocean" increasedknowledgeand experienceof is biblicalarcheologyis a peculiarly that he adds whose Elsewhere those 1966b: 1). job descriptions permit (Albright (1966a: 13) the chronological boun- them to specialize in Palestinian American phenomenonand is a misdaries of the discipline:"from about archeology.However, Dever goes one nomer for what is more correctly 10,000 B.C.,or even earlier, to the step further;he has proposed, along regardedby scholarsin other countries present time." Albright'sdefinition is with D. L. Holland(Dever 1974:32-35; as Palestinian archeology. Continued staggeringin its catholicity;neverthe- Holland 1974), that the term biblical use of the term,Deverargues(1974:18less, it or somethingsimilaris the only archeology be abandoned altogether 22), cuts Americans off from proper viable descriptionof the term biblical and that hereafter we speak only of communicationhere and abroad with those whose concernsare culturaland archeologyas I shall arguebelow. But Palestinian archeology. But-to the problem is immediatelyapparent: paraphrase an old saw-Dever's anthropologicalrather than biblical. who except perhaps Albright himself freedom to swing his terminological There are several responsesthat must (and I use the qualifieradvisedly)can arm ends where the nose of my self- be made here. First of all, and we shall possibly measure up as a biblical understandingbegins,and the proposal expand this point later on, Dever asarcheologistunder such a job descrip- of my distinguished colleague and sumes that the terms biblical tion? The outcome was inevitable: learnedfriendmust be utterlyrejected. archeologyand Palestinianarcheology Albright'sstudentsdealt with as much Let me expanda bit, althoughspacewill referto the samedisciplineandthat the of this purviewas they couldcope with, not allowa full reviewof his arguments. terms are therefore interchangeable. For one thing, Deverfearsthat the This is simply not the case, as I shall and some havecoped impressively.But Second, biblical in more than one instance, particularly term biblical archeology is irretriev- demonstrate. in more recent years, what would begin ably tainted by fundamentalism. The archeologyis indeedan Americandisas an interest in the Bible and As- biblical archeologist is seen as someone cipline because Albright was an syriology or the Bible and Ugaritology who seeks to prove the Bible true, who American. Albright's definition of or Palestinian archeology soon became mounts expeditions in search of Noah's biblical archeology, I remind you, an interest in those disciplines per se. ark or for the site of the Garden of Eden embracedthe historyof all landsmenAnd why not? All these and many more (Dever 1974: 16-17). But in some uni- tioned in the Bible. The optimism falling within Albright's definition are versity circles, anyone who studies the implicit in such a definition, namely complete, autonomous bodies of Bible at all is regarded as a superstitious that one disciplinecould possibly cast knowledge, requiring several lifetimes fool. (The ignorance that one often its net so broadly,is perhapspeculiarly of study to master fully. Once deeply finds in universities about the nature of American, indeed peculiar to an immersed in them, one is often in- critical study of the Bible, or religion, is America of an era which is past. The creasingly impatient with the inter- so familiar that it scarcely needs to be day may well be gone, becauseof the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

99

like form criticism or redaction criticismor any other exegeticalpoint of view. Biblicalarcheologyis that subspecialtyof biblicalstudieswhichseeks to bringto bearon the interpretationof the Bible all of the informationgained througharcheologicalresearchanddiscovery. Clearly much of that information comes from Palestine;when the biblicalarcheologiststepsintotechnical mattersof Palestinianarcheology,he or she becomesa Palestinianarcheologist whoseworkof excavation,analysis,and publicationmust go on with the same kind of criticalrigorthat wouldbe expected in any other aspect of critical biblicalor historicalstudy.The biblical archeologistwhen workingin Palestin-

in recent years in Palestinian archeologyranks among some of the finest that has been done. Being a biblical archeologist in itself says nothing about the critical care with which one does one's work. Given this definition of biblical archeology,namelythat its focus is the Bible itself, it becomesincreasinglyapparentwhy the attemptto suppressthe term in favorof Palestinianarcheology is an exercisein futility.The texts of the Bible deal with a geographicalarea far wider than Palestine. The biblical archeologistwho is studying Second Isaiahor Ezekielwill be as interestedin the archeological findings from the excavations of Babylon as from Palestine. The student of the New Testament,from the point of view of biblicalarcheology,will be as muchinterested in Ist- and 2nd-centuryAsia Minor as in Ist-centuryPalestine.So long as anyonereadsthe Bibleandasks questionsabout the world which produced it, the attemptsto answerthose questions will constitute biblical archeology.Biblicalarcheologywill go on; the onlyrealquestionis whetherit is done criticallyor naively. Biblical archeology as I have definedit has some inevitabletensions, but tensionsthat can be managed.For one thing, biblical archeologistsmust becomemore awarethat the days have probably passed for good when any single person can write a one-volume biblical archeology,just as no single authorcan write a historyof the entire ancientNear East. No one can keepup in all areas,andrecentattemptsto write one-volume compendia suffer as a result. Second, there is the inevitable danger, alreadymentioned,which was well phrasedby HelmutKoester(1978: 7) in his comments last year at San Francisco:"It is very easy to become entangledin the technicalexpertisein

ian archeology does not ask or expect or give any quarter in the application of the highest standards of scholarship. But he or she works in Palestinian archeology with a different goal in mind, namely the elucidation of the biblical text. Others working in Palestinian archeology may have other goals in mind-cultural history, the history of technology, the history of the domestication of animals-it matters little. As Dever himself acknowledges (1974: 24), the work of biblical scholars

archeological disciplines and to forget the origin of the quest." The centrifugal force of the independent disciplines of ancient Near Eastern or classical archeology must be balanced by the centripetal pull of the Bible as the focus of attention. For example, if Palestinian dig staffs need to be expanded to include geologists and paleoethnobiologists, so also they ought to have some staff member whose primarynot incidental-responsibility it is to interpret the findings of the excavation

informationexplosion,whenAlbright's definitionof biblicalarcheologycan be practicedby a single individual,but its conceptionremainsvalid, and if that is a peculiarlyAmericaninsight,then so be it. Third, quality scholarshipwill always be able to establish communication with other disciplines. In the last analysis, it is results that impress,not titles. The Natureof BiblicalArcheology Dever raises furthersimilar objections to the use of the term biblical archeology,but to continueto look at individual arguments really obscures the central issue, which is this: are Palestinian archeology or even SyroPalestinian archeology and biblical archeologysynonymousterms?Canthe two be usedinterchangeably so that one term or the other may be dispensed with?The answercertainlyis "no,"and the reasonis so simplethat it is easily overlooked.

For

Palestinian

archeology, the center of interest is Palestine,the land and its history.For biblical archeology, the center of interest is the Bible, its backgroundand interpretation.Biblicalarcheologyis a techniquefor the study of the Bible just

100

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

for biblicalscholars.The widerguildof biblicalscholarsis rightlyfrustratedby the increasingesotericismof Palestinian archeology.We who considerourselves biblicalarcheologistshavebeenseverely derelictat this point;andlest I be guilty of hypocrisy,let me confessthatthe two Gezervolumesof whichI am coauthor must fall under the same judgment (Dever, Lance,et al. 1970, 1974). Future Outlook

I began by citing this as a time of indecision and reassessmentfor biblical archeology.Whatthen are the implications of what has been said for the futureof the discipline?First of all, in order for biblical archeology to perform its properrole, it must remember that its centralfocusis the Bible7 andthe of the Bible.Just as form interpretation criticism or text criticism or biblical theologyare all distinctivethoughinterrelated aspects of exegesis, so also is biblicalarcheology,whoseinterestis in the historicaland culturalbackground of the Bible,especiallyas reconstructed from the results of archeological excavations.This means that biblical archeologistsmust choose some aspect of the ancient world, for example, Palestinianarcheologyor Assyriology or Ugaritic studies, in which to make ourselvesat least competentobservers and perhaps competent participants. And at that pointwe shallhaveto make a crucialdecision that really is one of self-identity:do we wish to make our contributionto the world of learning basicallyas biblicalscholars,or do we wish to do it as Assyriologists or Palestinianarcheologistsor whatever? My plea is that more of us opt for the basic identification as biblical interpreter and thus redefine our priorities so that the benefit of our archeological research is selfconsciouslybroughtto bear on biblical studies. The biblical archeologist in this sense is a bridge-builderand interpreter, making available the insights gained from one's archeological study to other scholars and to the general public. Second, Albright's catholic definition of biblical archeology must be maintained, for it describes the world which must be understood in order to understand the Bible. The question is how to keep in touch with so vast a territory, given the information explosion. The obvious answer is specialization, but then we are once more on the slip-

pery path to mutual isolation. Some way must be found to engage more in team efforts,just as Palestinianexcavations have become team efforts. The Germans, for example, have always been able to form teams to work on large scholarly projects, and we must work towarda similarstyle. Third, new genres of scholarly literature must be advised to bring archeologicalinformationto bearmore effectivelyon biblical studies. Othmar Keel's collection(1978) of background materials for the study of the Psalter may suggest one model. Another model,one overwhichI have mulledfor sometime,wouldbe somethingthat one might call an archeological commentary.Perhapsconstructedmore as a seriesof notes on the text ratherthan a full-scalecommentary,it would present with plansanddrawingsthe results of archeologyas they affect the interpretationof Kings, for example,or the Minor Prophets,or whatever.It would be writtenmore with other scholarsin mindratherthanthe generalpublicand so wouldpresentthe evidencefully and critically, allowing readers to understandthe issues, ratherthan presenting them with a final popularizedsynthesis with no indicationhow the resultswere obtained. Such works-and no doubt thereare otherviablemodels-are badly needed. Is biblicalarcheologyas a distinctive American concept about to fade away in this post-Albrightianera or be swallowed up by Palestinian archeology?By no means. So long as the flood of newmaterialkeepspouring from the tells and sites of the biblical world,the biblicalexegetehas only two options:eitherto ignorethe flood or to take it into account when interpreting the Bible. Ultimately only the second option is viable; therefore, biblical archeology's past is only a swelling prologue to a long and productive future.

Onomastic Perplexity. The Biblical Archaeologist 37: 19-23.

Bibliography Albright, W. F. 1966a Archaeology, Historical Analogy, and Early Biblical Tradition. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 1966b New Horizons in Biblical Research. London: Oxford University. Avi-Yonah, M., ed. 1975-79 Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Masada. Busink, Th. A. 1970 Der Tempel Salomos. Vol. I in Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Campbell, E. F. 1975 Ruth. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Childs, B. S. 1970 Biblical in Crisis. Theology Philadelphia: Westminster. Dever, W. G. 1974 Archaeology and Biblical Studies: and Prospects. Retrospects Evanston, IL: Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Dever, W. G., et al. 1974 Gezer II. Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck of Biblical School Archaeology. Dever, W. G., Lance, H. D., Wright, G. E. 1970 Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School. Galling, K., ed. 1977 Biblisches Reallexfkon. 2nd ed. rev. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr Paul Siebeck. Glock, A. Forthcoming

Gray, J. 1970

Keel, O. 1978

The Symbolism of the Biblical World.: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. New York: Seabury.

Koester, H. 1978 New Testament and Archaeology. American Schools of Oriental no. 6. Research Newsletter, Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. P. Matthiae, 1977 Tell Mardikh: The Archives and Palace. Archaeology 30: 244-53. Meshel, Z. 1977 Kuntillet Ajrud, 1975-1976. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 52-53. Noth, M. 1968 KBnige I.: Konige 1-16. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 9/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Pettinato, G. The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh1976 Ebla. Biblical Archeologist 39: 44-52. Pope, M. H. 1977 Song of Songs. Anchor Bible 7C. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. G. E. Wright, 1970 The Phenomenon of American Archaeology in the Near East. Pp. 340 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1971 What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do. The Biblical Archaeologist 34: 70-76. Wiirthwein, E. 1977 Das Erste Buch der Konige.: Kapitel 1-16. G8ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Rupprecht.

Note Biblical Archaeology, an Emerging Discipline. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies.

I & II Kings. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. Holland, D. L. 1974 "Biblical An Archaeology":

'After hearing this paper in New Orleans, Prof. Albert Glock kindly sent me a copy of the proofs of his forthcoming article, "Biblical Archaeology, an Emerging Discipline," in which he also calls strongly for the identification of biblical archeology as a subdiscipline of biblical studies. His article will appear in the Festschrift for Siegfried Horn, The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

101

ASOR PUBLICATIONS Members of ASOR are entitled to the member price, given in parentheses, of all ASOR publications, including the following titles. Please note order information below. BOOKS

ASOR EXCAVATIONREPORTS

Scrolls from Qumran Cave I. Color Photographs by John C. Trever. Edited by Frank M. Cross, David N. Freedman, James A. Sanders .................

Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. $25.00 ($20.00) By Walter Rast .................... $30.00

The Biblical Archaeologist Readers, Vols. I and II. Edited by Edward F. Campbell, Jr., David N. Freedman, and G. E. C-$9.00 ($7.20) P-$6.00 ($4.80) Wright (reprint) .................. The Other Side of the Jordan. By Nelson Glueck ........... ................

$10.00

Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975). Edited by Frank M. Cross

$8.00 ($6.40)

ASOR ANNUALS

$10.50 ($8.40)

Vol. 43: ASOR Preliminary Excavation Reports: Bab edh-Dhra, Sardis, Meiron, Tell el-Hesi, Carthage(Punic). Edited by David N. Freedman ................ $17.50 ($14.00) Vol. 44: Archeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project-Euphrates Valley, Syria. Edited by David N. Freedman $20.00 ($16.00) Vol. 45: The Third Campaign at Tell elFul: The Excavations of 1964. By Nancy L. Lapp and others ................ $25.00 ($20.00) Vol. 46: The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report of the 1977 Season. By Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub ................ $25.00 ($20.00)

To Order: Send your order and payment to Eisenbrauns P.O.B. 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 USA Master Card and Visa are accepted; please supply your card number and the expiration date. Please add shipping charges to your payment as follows: 102

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

The Tell el-Hesi Field Manual. By JeffreyC$15.00 ($12.00) A. Blakely and Lawrence E. Toombs P$12.00 ($ 9.60) Excavations at Ancient Meiron. By E. M. Meyers, J. F. Strange, and C. L. Meyers $42.50 ($26.00) SUPPLEMENTSTO BASOR

Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee. By C-$12.00 ($9.60) Richard S. Hanson $8.00 ($6.40) ................P-

Vol. 41: Discoveries in the Wadi edDaliyeh. Edited by Paul W. and Nancy ............ Lapp ...............

The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (et-Tell). By Joseph A. $25.00 ($20.00) Callaway .........................

1982

No. 20: Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium. Edited by Charlotte B. Moore .............

$8.00 ($6.40)

No. 21: Report on Archaeological Work at Suwwanet eth-Thaniya, Tananir, and Khirbet Minha (Munhata). Edited by C-$9.00 ($7.20) P-$6.00 ($4.80) George M. Landes ................. No. 22: Cylinder Seals of Third-Millennium Palestine. By Amnon Ben-Tor $12.50 ($10.00) ASOR DISSERTATIONSERIES

No. 2: The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the C-$9.00 ($7.20) Biblical Cult. By Carol Meyers ...... P-$6.00 ($4.80) ASOR MONOGRAPH SERIES

No. 1: Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts. By Robert T. Anderson

$8.00 ($6.40)

No. 2: Matres Lectionis in Ancient HebrewC-$12.00 ($9.60) P-$ 9.60 ($6.40) Epigraphs. By Ziony Zevit .......... No. 3: The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery: A Preliminary Report on the Manuscripts. By James H. .. Charlesworth ...................

Order total United States $0.00 - $15.00 $15.00 - $25.00 $25.00 - up Foreign (including Canada) $0.00 - $20.00 $20.00 - up

$6.00 ($4.80)

Shipping Charge Minimum:$1.50 10% of order total 5% of order total Minimum:$2.00 10% of order total

Retrospects and Prospects in

Biblical

and

Syro-Palestinian Archeology William G. Dever

In rejecting "biblicalarcheology" as an independentdiscipline, this leading scholar calls for the professional development of a theory, method, and trainingfor what he prefersto describe as "Syro-Palestinianarcheology."

In this paper,I shalldwelllargelyon the prospects for "biblical" and SyroPalestinianarcheology,both becauseit will be clear from this how I think we may view the historyand presentstatus of our disciplines,and also becauseat this juncturea venerabletraditionis in dangerof extinctionunlesswe do think and plan boldly for the future. BiblicalArcheology Since I advocate the separation of "biblical" and Syro-Palestinian archeology,it is only properfor me to leave to other capable spokesmenthe task of redefining "biblical archeology." I shall refer in passing only to H. D. Lance'sviews,since they offer a challengewhich must be met. First, the questionis no longer(as it seemedwhenI firstdiscussedthe possibility in 1971) whether American Syro-Palestinianarcheology can survive as an independentdiscipline,but, rather,whetherthereis room alongside it for anotherdisciplinecalled "biblical archeology." I do not deny that "biblicalarcheology"exists, but I do questionwhetherit can be an academic disciplinein the strictsense.In my view, "biblicalarcheology"is not a branchof archeologyat all. It is ratheran interdisciplinary pursuit-a "dialogue"

between specialists in Near Eastern archeologyand biblicalhistorians.This pursuit can (and indeed in our case must)be scholarly,andto thatextentit may be an academicenterprise.But it is not a "discipline." Seen from an archeological perspective, "biblical archeology" has no independent rationale, methodology, objectives, status, or support. Incidentally, Lance (see above) tacitlyagreeswiththis descriptionwhen he defines the objective of "biblical archeology"as the Bible,whenhe treats "biblical archeology"as a "technique for the study of the Bible," a "subspecialty of biblical studies,"or when he describesthe biblicalarcheologistas a "bridge-builder."Moreover, Lance speaksof "thosedisciplines(sic) which intersectto form biblicalarcheologyBible, Syro-Palestinianarcheologyand epigraphy, Assyriology, and Egyptology." It is at the latter point that I enter my chief objectionto the view of my colleague and to the oft-quoted definitionof WrightandAlbrightwhich it reflects("fromGibralterto the Indus Valley"). When "biblical archeology" is conceivedin this way, it is no discipline at all but is equivalentto the whole of ancient Near Easternstudies as they bear on the Bible. In short,the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

103

definitionis so broadthat it is meaningless. The works Lance mentions as realizations of the goal of "biblical archeology"-Galling's Biblisches

Reallexikon, Busink's Der Tempel von

Jerusalem, or Lance's own projected archeologicalcommentaryon Kingsmay be desirablein themselves,butthey do not constitute"archeology"if that word has any universal meaning. At most they might be considered"armchair"or appliedarcheology. Secondly, I question whether "biblicalarcheology"(or "the studyof archeologyandthe Bible,"as I preferto call it) can any longerdominateSyroPalestinianarcheologyas it has in the uniquely American (specifically Albrightian)tradition.ElsewhereI have pointedout boththe theoreticalandthe heuristicargumentsfor allowingandindeed encouraging Syro-Palestinian archeologyto come of age as an independentdiscipline.To me the logic is irrefutable,but to illustrate the extremes to which defenders of traditional "biblicalarcheology"will go, as well as the confusionwhichplaguesour discussion,I quote from a recentcritique of my position,whichstatesin conclusionthat "WilliamFoxwellAlbright regardedPalestinianArchaeologyas a small, if important,section of biblical archaeology." Lest you dismiss this view, whichis obviouslybackward(!),I point out that the authorof that statement is FrankMoore Cross(1973:4,5). Cross(p. 5) goes on to say regardingthe two terms (biblical and SyroPalestinian archaeology) that he "finds

it ironicalthat recentstudentssuppose them interchangeable." Thatmissesmy point: they are not interchangeable terms. "Syro-Palestinianarcheology" is not the same as, not a small part of, "biblicalarcheology."I regret to say that all who woulddefendAlbrightand "biblical archeology"on this ground are sadlyout of touchwithrealityin the field of archeology. To define SyroPalestinian archeology in such parochial terms is no credit to Albright! Lance, of course, is an experienced (and, I would say, thoroughly professional) archeologist. He does not go this far, but he does labor under the same misunderstanding of my view. I have never favored "suppressing the term (biblical archeology) in favor of Palestinian archeology," even though I do think it unfortunate, but I have objected to the use of the term "biblical

104

set the disciplinein a morepositiveand in America(and therehas alwaysbeen universalcontext.) The first and most fundamental elsewhere) an entity properly called Syro-Palestinian archeology. Where desideratum is a coherent, wellbiblical studies are concernedit is an formulatedbody of theory. Compared autonomousdiscipline.Like any other to other branchesof archeology,Near branchof generalarcheology,it shares Eastern and particularly Syroa commonmethodologyand objective, Palestinian archeology have been but it has its own properand unique notoriously impoverished in this geographical,chronological,and cul- respect. Not only have we lacked turalboundaries.I agreewithCrossand theoreticalformulations,but we have Lance that "biblical archeology" is failed to provide the systematic somethingelse; what it is, and what it articulationof presuppositionsor the should be called, I leave to them. But detailedresearchdesignswhichmake a their questcannotbe determinativefor discipline self-conscious,intellectually Syro-Palestinianarcheology.(Herethe honest, and rigorously systematic. is ex- Indeed, apart from the two essays by "nose of my self-understanding" Albright(1969: 1-14)andWright(1969: posed!) I resist cannot observing 149-69),it is hardto findevena general Finally, that despite Lance'soptimisticprojec- definition of archeology, biblical or tionsfor "biblicalarcheology"it is he- otherwise.The pragmaticapproachhas not I!-who defines it in impossible been so dominantin Syro-Palestinian terms. Lance admits that "biblical and "biblical"archeologythat I cannot archeology"is "peculiarlyAmerican," find a singlearticleor prefaceto a field as I also haveargued;but if so, it is too report in which the practitionersset provincial to commend itself today, forth in detail what they thoughtthey when the archeological scene is in- were doing (apart from digging)creasinglydominatedby the burgeoning which inevitably suggested to other "nationalschools"in the MiddleEast. archeologiststhattheydid not know.In Furthermore,in Lance'sdefinitionthe this sense,we are approximatelywhere "only viable descriptionof the term Americanarcheologywas in the 1930s biblical archeology" is such that no one (as a brief reading of Willey and but Albrighthimself could fit the job Sabloff's A History of American description-and he is gone? Lastly, Archaeologywill show). Nowhere has Lance agrees with me that "biblical our lack of sophistication reflected archeology"was largely a productof more disastrouslyon our work, and the late, lamented biblical theology nothing has so hinderedour convermovementof the 1950s. All this is a sations with Old World prehistory counsel of despair. Lance's fond, or American anthropology and archeologyas our naiveteat this point. nostalgic tribute to "biblical Lance suggests that it doesn't matter like an archeology"sounds curiously what others think. To American obituary!Fortunately,Syro-Palestinian archeology-on whichthe studyof the archeologistsit must if they are to be Bible in the light of archeology taken seriously. I am haunted by a depends-is alive, though as we shall statementourbelovedteacherandmentor, ErnestWright, made to me three see, not entirelywell. weeks before his death. He remarked that one of the ironiesof his careerwas that his theological colleagues disSyro-PalestinianArcheology archeology" pars pro toto. There is now

Here, where I have somewhat more missed him as an archeologist, and his confidence (and competence), I offer archeological colleagues dismissed him what may sound like an indictment of as a theologian. our discipline but is intended as a proNext, we need to develop a gram for getting from where we are to methodology adequate to carry out the where I think we should be. I make no objectives implicit in the theoretical apologies for the critical tone, any more framework to be adopted for our disthan for the distinctly "American" cipline. Here I do not mean what orientation. This is neither churlishness "method" usually denotes in our cirnor chauvinism, but a recognition of the cles-a set of techniques for excavation seriousness and the specialized interests and recording, a "bag of tricks." These of this audience. (My chapter in the are largely mechanical and require for SBL Centenary volume will attempt to the most part skills at which Amer-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

icans are particularlyadept,althoughit is to our credit that we have now elaboratedfield techniquesinto a fine art. But that is merelythe beginningof method,what learningto copy a text is to a budding Assyriologist. I refer rather to the intellectual discipline which alone transforms archeology from "treasure-hunting" into an imaginativeexercisein penetratingthe past, reconstructingthe humancultural process sympatheticallyand convincingly.Once againthe realityis painful to confrontin the light of the ideal.You haveonly to look at ourrecentattempts (few enough!) at historical interpretation, integration,and synthesis-not to mentionour efforts at archeologicalor cultural"explanation"-to see that we havehad no methodologyworthyof the name.We haveproceededon an ad hoc basis, developingskills in stratigraphy and ceramic typology, with the result that we have come away from our moundswitha ceramicsequenceandan outline of the political history. But we have failed to develop an explicit methodology,appropriateto eitherthe complexity or the potential of our developingdiscipline today. We have yet to lay the theoretical and methodologicalgroundwork;until we do this, we remain "hung up in the prolegomenon." The third need is for adequate trainingfor a futuregeneration(assuming that it is alreadytoo late for us). This will be definedby and dependent upon our success in meeting the first two needs, for otherwisewe shall not knowwhatkindof archeologistswe can and must produce.Withoutattempting hereto rewriteourgraduateschoolcurricula, let me simply observethat the sort of training most of us had-in biblicalstudieson the one hand and in Near Easternlanguagesand literatures on the other-is obviously no longer adequate.Of course,I wouldinsistthat

sion suchbroad,interdisciplinary training, and even includingEuropeand the Middle East there are only one or two more. Yet without such programswe cannotcreateandmaintainthe generally accepted, professional standards whichourdiscipline,like all branchesof archeologytoday, needs if it is to remain viable. In this connection, an aside on may be relevant.We "professionalism" have delayed, or even resisted, the growthof professionalismin "biblical" and Syro-Palestinianarcheology,largely, I think, becausemany in our amateur traditionare threatenedby it. Let me emphasizethat we shall continueto need "amateurs"in the trueetymological sense-"lovers" of archeologywho neednot makea livingat it andcanpursue it for the sheer, unadulteratedlove of learning.But amateurscannotbe allowed to determine the scope, methodology,or objectivesof any discipline, ours included.Professionalism is both inevitableand beneficial,if for no otherreasonthanthe fact that it will force the raisingof standards.This will excludesome,but it should.The appalling lack of recognizedstandardsin our field has meantthat anyonecouldbe an archeologist;but, if anyone can, few will bother! Nothing has so destroyed the credibilityof our field as the nonsensewrittenby self-styled"experts"in the name of the "biblicalarcheology." It is hightime that we archeologistsand biblical scholarsstop dabblingin each other'sfields. Here the Albrightlegacy has been a mixedblessing,insofaras it has perpetuatedthe illusionthat one individual can control so many fields. This dilletantism,a scandalousaspect of ourtradition,we mustrepudiate,and in its place we must encourage the growthof an unabashedlyprofessional discipline,one which will attract firstrate minds,will stimulatethemto intellectual achievement of the highest

those fields are still prerequisites, but today's archeologist must also know and geology, paleoethnobotany zoology, ethnography, social, cultural and physical anthropology, statistical theory, and other recondite specializations I shudder to think about. What we manifestly need is a truly multidisciplinary approach, but here we have scarcely begun. In the entire Englishspeaking world, there are only two or three Ph.D. programs in SyroPalestinian archeology that even envi-

order, and rather than requiringthem to pretend to be something else will allow them pride in their expertise as archeologists. Again, one requirement leads to another, in this case the need for a between rapprochement SyroPalestinian and other branches of archeology. This is essential, for no subdiscipline of archeology today can be self-sufficient. But such mutuality and cooperation presume an equal partnership, in which our own integrity and

specializedcompetencein ourbranchof archeology are no longer at issue, in short,whenwe have demonstratedthat Syro-Palestinianarcheologyhas moved beyondamateurto professionalstatus. None of the above, howeverdesirable, will be possible withoutsupport, moral and monetary. Here we must capitalizeon the incrediblepopularinterestandenthusiasmwhicharcheology generates today. The challenge is to transformcuriosity into commitment, fascination into funding. Prehistory, anthropology,and classicshavedone it for a long time-and withoutthe Bible. We shall have to do the same. We can no longer simply look to theological schools and religiousorganizationsfor support.And, temptingthough it may be, we dare not rely exclusivelyon increasinggovernmentsubsidies.If SyroPalestinianarcheologyis to survivein this country,we must create a broad, stable infrastructure of support-a publicclimateof informedopinionand enlightenedconcern. That means that we cannot rely in the futureon special pleading(the "biblicalconnection")but must speakeloquentlyon the universal, humanistic value of our field of investigation.And, needlessto say, we cannot go on promoting amateur archeology by panderingto "romanticism" and the thirstfor adventure(as Cosmopolitanmagazineonce described the Gezervolunteerprogram,"Amidst Stones,Bones,andSun-tannedMen"!). We must argue persuasivelythat our branchof archeologyhas grownup, that it has a programfor conservinga uniqueculturalheritage,that it deserves to be taken seriously and supported. This meanscultivatingpublicas well as privatesupport,for both are essential. Here we havemadereal progressin the last decade; our bids for government fundsandfoundationsupporthavebeen successful enough to tide us over a transitional period in American archeology. But where do we go from here? For one thing, we ought to be lobbying for the creation of undergraduate and graduate programs, student fellowships, libraries, grants for fieldwork, and above all, new research and teaching posts, particularly at state universities, where it appears that the future of academic life in America will be determined. (At Arizona we have taken the lead in establishing new programs, but there is little reason to

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

105

believethis patternwill be typical.)Our field is still so patheticallysmall that I count literally only a handful of teaching positions in Syro-Palestinian archeologyin this country,andonlyone or two of those at the professoriallevel; in researchshipsand curatorships,the situation is even more depressing. ErnestWrightobjectedto my plea for the separationof Syro-Palestinianfrom "biblical"archeologypartlybecausehe believedthe former could not support itself as a secular discipline. In America,in the future,it must;if it cannot compete for funds, it does not deserveto survive,and it will not. I pass ratherquicklyoversomeobvious needs, beyond those I have just mentioned.Firstis the strengtheningof our in-countryinstitutesabroad,which are the bases for researchand fieldwork. I am not espousing the "Establishment"view of some that ASOR should representall American archeologyin the MiddleEast. But it is a historicalfact that our fieldworkhas thrivedlargelyin those countrieswhere ASOR has been able to maintain centers,especiallyunderthe directionof long-term, resident, professional archeologists.We cannot go into the complex organizational,financial,and political difficulties facing our incountry institutesin the Middle East, but they must be maintained,and indeedexpanded,if Americanarcheology is to haveanythingto contributein that part of the world. It is equally obvious that our centersmustbe activein newprojects-not so much in additionalexcavations, for we have dug too much and published too little in recent years. We should plan, rather, a more comprehensive program that combines an overall coordinated strategy, close teamwork, the most efficient utilization of our limited resources,highly selective individual projects, surface

developing "national schools." As Albrightexcelledin potterytypologyin his time, let us pioneerin otheraspects of archeologyin ours. In this way we shall not only maintain a distinctly "American" approach, but we shall also be able to recruitexceptionalstudents and preparethem for specializations which will contributeto the advance of the field in general. That leads me finally, with great trepidation, to the point of it all: scholarship.Archeology is more than digging a square hole in the ground. Until we produce published scholarship commensuratewith our superbly organized expeditions and our meticulously conducted field excavations, all our talk about SyroPalestinianarcheology"maturingas a discipline" will carry no conviction. Indeed, the very use of the word "discipline"for our field of inquiry beginsto appeara tragicmisnomer.We must recognizethat until archeological materialsare workedup and published, there is no scholarship,only raw undigested data, meaningless information, disjointedbits and pieces,relicsof a lifeless past. Here our record is dismal, but it mustbe faced;sinceWorldWarII not a single,majorexcavationin our fieldhas managedto producea finalfieldreport. Our foremost excavators-American, French,British,Israeli-have diedwith theirdigs in theirheads.The sad fact is that the bulk of the excavatedmaterial in our field is unpublished.In speaking of the "assuredresultsof a generation of archeologicalinvestigation,"most of us are drawingon data virtuallyno one else has seen. Is it any wonder that hearsay and gossip, endless controversies,andpersonalrivalriesplague our field, or that ourintegrityandcompetenceare questionedby colleaguesin other fields of scholarship? Unfortunately,evenwhenwe do get aroundto

of archeology.What is wrong?Are we by comparisonintellectuallyinferior, frivolousaboutour work, lazy?I think not. Part of the difficultyis surelythe fact that so many workersin our field are part-timeand must make their living doing somethingelse. But the real problemis of our own making:we have preferredthe adventure of fieldwork over the lonely, arduoustask of thinking and writing. In the end, we must confessthat our failureto publishis not dueto the "sorrystateof the art,"but is ratherthe inevitableconsequenceof our own confusedpriorities,our lackof discipline. I do not meanto be judgmentalor to add to our alreadyparalyzingsense of defeat;afterall, I, too, am a member of the same"fraternityof guilt."Butwe must continueto say to ourselves,until we believe it, that to excavatewithout it is publishingis not only reprehensible, morallyirresponsible.We mustsee to it that those who publishare recognized and rewarded,those who do not are penalized.Unless we can do this, the word"discipline"remainsa crueljoke.

surveys of larger regions;,excavation of sites, environmental one-period archeology, "problem-solving" digs, and sophisticated research designs which will produce the maximum in specific scholarly results. Planning such a program will be even more crucial as archeology becomes astronomically expensive in the Middle East, and as the American role becomes more peripheral. We simply cannot do everything, nor do we need to in this day of

publishing, it is usually descriptive-more reportage ("who found what") than scholarly synthesis ("what it means"). Not only are there almost no excavation reports, there are no suitable textbooks in our field. It is no wonder that biblical historians and exegetes complain that they cannot make use of archeological results. Compare this with the monumental scholarly publications and the voluminous literature in other branches

for "biblical archeology," not because it has no future but because that is beyond my purview. If I were to prescribe for my "biblical archeology," recommendations might differ in degree but not in kind from those I have already made; precisely to the degree that Syro-Palestinian archeology is healthy, the study of the Bible in the light of archeology prospers. And far from divorcing our branch of archeology from biblical studies, as

106

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

Conclusion This has been far from a balancedor comprehensivetreatment,but some of the omissionsaredeliberate.I havesaid nothingabout the "New Archeology," whichsomewag has observedis neither new nor archeology. In any case, archeologicalfads andthe paradigmsof scienceand anthropologywill not serve our field well. In our partof the world, workingwiththe moundsof the Middle East, we need first to masterthe "Old Archeology,"and then to build upon the sound basis of historical models, supplementingthem with the best of what social and culturalanthropology have to offer. We can learnfrom other branchesof archeology,butwe neednot imitate blindly. I havedeclinedto offera prognosis

some have feared, I hope to see a new and genuinedialogue,based on the integrityand competenceof two independent but interrelateddisciplines. Though I have confined myself here largely to the Americanscene, I would foresee similar prospects for Syro-Palestinianarcheology as practiced by other national schoolswhether it is conceived as the "archeology of Eretz-Israel," or of Jordan,or even the "archeologyof the Levant"in a pan-nationalsense,should that become feasible. What prospers one branchof Near Easternarcheology prospersall. Finally, I am aware that the prospects I have described for SyroPalestinianarcheologyas a discipline are so idealisticas to appearutopian. But it is informativeto readthe storyof growth from amateur pursuit to academic discipline in other fields-

American anthropology,for instance, which, for all its impressiveweight in academia today, was not even recognizedin Americanuniversitiesas a separatefielduntiltwo generationsago. If others can establish and support themselvesin theirdisciplines,why not us? We need to remember that archeology, one of the youngest branchesof the humanitiesand one of the fastestgrowing,is only beginningto demonstrateits full potential.In sucha time of growthand change,it wouldbe hazardousto predictin detailwhatmay lie ahead,but the generalprospectsfor our field and for archeologyin relation to biblical studies have never been brighter. Bibliography Albright, W. F. 1969 The Impact of Archeology on Biblical Research-1966. Pp. 1-14 in New

Directions in Biblical Archaeology, eds. D. N. Freedman and J. Greenfield. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Cross, F. M. 1973 W. F. Albright's View of Biblical Archaeology and its Methodology. The Biblical Archaeologist 36: 2-5. Dever, W. G. in Palestinian Archaeology, 1945-1979: Portrait of an Emerging Discipline. press In The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, eds. D. A. Knight and G. Tucker. G. R., and Sabloff, J. A. Willey, 1974 A History of American Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson. Wright, G. E. 1969 Biblical Archaeology Today. Pp. 149-65 in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, eds. D. N. Freedman and J. Greenfield. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1982

107

Announcement

ASOR Subscription Services is now being handled at ASOR's Administrative Offices. Please send all subscription orders, claims, complaints, payments, and information requests for Biblical Archeologist, the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Newsletter, the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, and all correspondence regarding membership in ASOR to: ASOR Subscription Services 126 Inman St. Cambridge, MA 02139 The distribution of all ASOR books and back issues is now being handled by Eisenbrauns. Please send all orders, information requests, claims, and payments to: Eisenbrauns P.O. Box 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590

108

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

View of KidronValleyoppositethe templemountof Jerusalem.The tombs of Absalom,Zechariah,and Bene Hezir are the majormonuments. The centuryimmediatelyprecedingthe Jerusalemand its environs,but evendestructionof the JerusalemTemplein tually it spread to other parts of the A.D.70 and the centuriesfollowingit country, such as Jericho, the Judean were decisive in the formation of foothills,the coastal plain and Galilee. normative Judaism and 'early Although absent in the Negev, the Christianity.The burialcustomsof this custom also appears once in Transperiod reflect on some of the ancient jordan and several times in North beliefs about expiation and resurrec- Africa, including Egypt. As for its tion, and the ossuaries, or bone occurrence,the practiceappearsto have depositories, which have been dis- been extant betweenthe reign of King coveredsupplyus with interestingdata Herod and the earlier part of the 3rd on the appearanceof the tombs and century A.D. Meyers' contention (Meyers & Meyers 1978b) that this funerarypracticesat that time. As we have indicatedpreviously, custom continuedto the 4th century, the custom of ossilegium,as practiced basedon the excavationsat Meironand by Jews in antiquity,is to be definedas Kh. Shema, seems unconvincing.In the preservationof the bones of an in- Tomb 1 at Meiron nothing quoted L. Y. Rahmani dividualor of very near kin (e.g. man (Meyerset al. 1978a)is datedlaterthan and wife, fatherand sons)together.The the 3rd century.Only the rarecase of a bones were collected from the tomb small loculus,containingossilegiumin In this final contributionon afterthe fleshhaddecayed(normallyat the sense used here, is cited (Meyerset ancient funerarypractices in the end of 12 months) and put into a al. 1978a:93). All othercases have disspecially prepared box, the ossuary turbedhumanremains,as is typicalof Jerusalem,a study is made of the (whichwas usuallymade of stone and, most of the tombsfrom Kh. Shema.As peculiar Jewish custom of rarely,of clay), whichthen was left in- the excavators state in their detailed the tomb. In rare cases a small report(Meyerset al. 1976: 145),these deposing of the bones from side recessor loculusinsidethe tomb served tombs had been rifledboth in antiquity family burials in specially the same purposeas the box. At first, and more recently,and thus, the data preparedreceptacles. ossilegium was practiced only in should be used with caution. Little in

Ancient

Jerusalem's Funerary

Customs

and

Tombs

Part

Four

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

109

their report points to individualossilegium;no ossuariesat all werefound. Dating such disturbed tombs, which were used and reused for prolonged periods,seems unsure. We have tried earlierto show the motivations behind ossilegium. The custom seems to be aimed at assuring the sinlessnessof the deceasedby expiation. The decompositionof the flesh, consideredmost painful,atonesfor past sins. Then, once the bones were bare, they were collectedand reservedin an ossuaryfor the resurrection,conceived at that time to involve the entire skeleton.In socialconditions,andtheological thinking appropriateto them, suchideasfit well withwhatwe knowof Pharisaiccirclesof the time. In the psychological sphere, this custom helped members of the Jewish population, burdenedwith great stress and worry throughout that period, to complete

theirworkof mourning,extendingit to 12 months. Ossilegium then must be distinguishedfrom earlier practices.One customrefrainedfromejectingbonesof formerburialsfrom an ancestraltomb merely in order to leave them to rest foreverwith the fathers in the netherworld who partook of whateverprovenderand securitywere given by the living. Another practice involved the transferof the remainsof deceasedJews for reburialin the Holy Land.Starting in the mid to late 3rd centuryA.D.,this custom was based on the belief that those buriedat BethShearim,Tiberias, or indeed any place within the boundariesof the Holy Land, would be assured of expiationof their sins and be the first to rise upon the appearanceof the Messiah.Moreover,these deceased wouldthusbe sparedthe painsof gilgul mehiloth, "rolling through under-

groundpassages,"believedto be the lot of those buriedoutside the Holy Land at the time of resurrection(Gafni1977). Because of these distinctly different practices, we reject Meyers' thesis that any tomb from whichbones of formerburialshadnot beenremoved or into which bones of deceasedfrom abroadhad been transferredshouldbe includedin the conceptof ossilegiumin the frameworkwith whichwe are dealing here (Meyers 1971; cf. Rahmani 1973). The Jewish ossilegium does thus appearas a Jerusalemitecustom,evolving locally, independentof any outside influence. In Jerusalem, the eschatological and ethical ideas behind the practicefound a concrete form of expression. Changing conditions in the 3rd centuryA.D.changedsuchconcrete ways of expressing expiation and resurrectionand spelledthe end of this

Red-washedossuarywith thinly inciseddecoration(No. 71.430, Departmentof Antiquities,Israel).

110

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

custom. Though such ossilegiumcould be practicedusing a sheet, the rabbisdisapproved because as the sheet disintegratedthe separationof the bonesof each skeleton could not be assured (Mourning 12:8), and thus the individuality of the resurrectedperson wasjeopardized.To preventminglingof bones some kind of box was calledfor: the ossuary.

urn, box, coffin." Recently this has Inscriptions on Ossuaries been confirmedby the find of an os- Inscriptions are found on a small suary from Jericho, where an inscrip- percentageof the ossuaries.The known tion identifies an ossuary as a soros inscriptionswere often written in a (Hachlili 1980). sketchyway, exceptfor a veryfew cases One shouldaddthat no woodenos- where the artisan seems to have done suaries have been discovered,even at the workin his shop.Typically,we may sites whereearliercoffinsmadeof wood findthe inscriptionscratchedwitha nail have been discovered.The woodencof- or drawnwitha pieceof charcoal,items fins from Jericho and nearbyEn-Gedi left behindsomewherein the tomb.The are either without decoration or inscriptionmay appearon any part of decoratedwith paint or inlay.The little the box or lid;in one case, it appearsinwoodworksurvivingat Herodionshows side the box and upside down. The only flat carving. inscriptionmay be somewhereon the Thus, we arrive at two con- bare back or narrowside of the box or clusions:(1) no school of woodworkers scratched over the ornament on its usingthe chip-carvingtechniqueexisted front, showinga completedisregardfor at that time in the country;(2) wooden both inscriptionand ornament.It may ossuarieswere avoideddeliberatelyfor be very large or very small, straightor the same reasonthat Rabbi Akiva op- at a right angle, upsidedown or retroposed the use of sheets for ossilegium: grade. Paint is very rarely used for "in the course of time, the sheet will inscriptions or ornamentation, but waste away, in the course of time the more often for broadly drawn red bones will intermingle.Let them rather bands. The inscriptionsconsistof a name, be gathered and placed in ossuaries" (Mourning 12:8).Clay ossuaries,used at timeswithpatronym,at timesonlyin in rarecases,seemto be a relativelylate its shortenedform (cf. Shabb. 12:3),if development.The commontermusedin necessary adding "... . and his wife" or Talmudic literature for this box is other appropriatekin relationship.We geloskema, "casket"; "ostophagos" may find a nicknameor place of origin, (lit. "bone-eater")appearsonce in an and sometimes mention of the proinscriptionupon an ossuary,parallelto fessionor the fact thatthe deceasedwas "sarcophagos" ("flesh-eater") as a a proselyte.Age is stated in very few common term for coffin. cases. An occasionalshalom (Dinkler

Physicalfeaturesof Ossuaries The outerform of these boxes seemsto have been copied from rectangular boxes used in contemporarydomestic affairs.Thesemay or may not havehad short feet and werecoveredwith a flat, gabled, or hemicylindricallid that in many cases simply rested upon the box'srim. At times railswerecut inside the rim or an insideridge was cut into the sides so that the lid, generallya flat one, could be slid in to close the box tightly. The dimensions of the box were determinedby the lengthof the bones, width of the hipbone,and height of all the bones together,includingthe skull. Generally,the practice was to collect the bonesof one individualin each box, but at times the bones of close relatives were placed together.The rabbisseem to have objectedto this latter practice, but finallygave way to what must have been an expressionof a strongpsycho- Hardstone ossuaryfrom a KidronValleytomb.The off-centerHebrew inscription logical urge. Rabbi Judahcodifiedthis reads"Shalom,Elazar'swife." matter in the mid 2nd century A.D.:

"Whomsoevera personmay sleep with whenhe is living,he may be buriedwith when he is dead" (Mourning13:8). Stonecuttersof the city werecalled upon to supply these small chests. In many cases decorationswere cut into the soft stone in a technique called "chip carving." European scholars, familiar with their folk-art in which wooden objects were similary ornamentedusingthis technique,assumed the existence of prototypical wooden ossuaries. This assumption seemed strengthened by Talmudic sourres, which mention for ossuaries the term arazim, which might also mean "cedars." However, a closer study of the sources showed that this word appears in many variants indicating that their writers were unsure of its meaning. S. Lieberman (1962) and D. Zlotnik (1966) suggested that we have here nothing more than a metastasis of the Greek word soros in the sense of "burial

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

111

1974)is found.Rareinjunctionsagainst the reopeningof an ossuaryoccur,often togetherwith a tightly closed lid, even fixed to the rim of the box with an iron nail, though the latter may occur withoutthe inscription.One case of a consolation formula, mentioningthat none are exemptfrom the descentinto the tomb, has been reported (Naveh 1980). Alleged "Christian" inscriptions (Sukenik 1947) were, upon reexamination,foundto be simplycommon names of the period(Kane 1976). Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek appear indiscriminatelyand often together.At timeswe mayencounterthe Greekform of a Hebrewname, writtenin Hebrew letters,or an Aramaicor Hebrewword writtenin Greekletters.One inscription may freely intermix Hebrew and Aramaic forms. Palmyreneand Latin inscriptionsappearin a very few cases, and one case of the use of ancient Hebrew letters, similar to those used upon Jewishcoins of the periodand in the Abba cave inscription (BA 45.1 [1982]: 51), has been reported. This almost complete avoidanceof ancient Hebrewscript upon ossuariestends to strengthenone's belief in the basically Pharisaiccharacter(Naveh 1973)of ossilegiumamong Jerusalem'scitizens. Marks on Ossuaries The marks-crosses, nicks, zigzags, Hebrew or Greek letters-appear on ossuariesusually in pairs, one on the narrowor long side of the box, or upon its rim, the correspondingone on the appropriateside of the lid. Mostly this is the case with hemicylindricalor gabledlids,but it mayalso occuron flat lids, sliding or not. A simple experiment will show that puttingthe lid in any otherdirectiondoes not obtainthe desiredclose fit. Markingsshowingthe way to fit are attestedin contemporary literature(Shabb. 12:3).A great number of sliding lids have only one mark; this is invariably put at the end destined to be inserted first into the rails or upon the ledge cut into the rim of the box. Some 15 exceptions to this procedure out of over 1000 analyzed ossuaries have been found. Most of these look like monograms, possibly used in place of the full name of the deceased. Only in one case do we have the graffito of a fish appearing near the name of the deceased. This may refer to his profession, to a personal trait, or it may al-

112

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

markson the ossuary'snarrowside rim andthe gableof the Matchingcross-formed

lid. The lid fits tightly into the sunken frame of the rim only if placed according to these marks.

lude to his nickname.The Xi-Ro appearingon one ossuary,interpretedby Bagatti (1958: 64; 178-79)as a monogram signifyingthat the defunct had becomeChristian,morelikelystoodfor the Greek charachtheon or charas-

samenos, "sealed" (cf. Colella 1973). This agrees well with injunctions against the reopeningof ossuaries,as mentionedabove. (For early and nonChristianmonogramsof this character, see also Leclercq1914.) The Artisans The artisans who were called upon to make these ossuaries belonged to two categories of local stone workers: (1)

the stonemasons, who prepared the tomb facades, the hard-stonecoffins, and the ossuaries using hammer and chisel, and (2) the stone carvers.The latter had their workshopsin the city and its surroundingsand used the soft kaakulehor nari,the local limestone,to prepareall sorts of stone vessels from large water jars to small measuring cups, platters, dishes, drinking cups,

respondin measurementto an averagesized ossuary. Moreover, the unsmoothed toolmarks on bases of ossuariesresemblethose on the wastersof such vessels. While the preferencefor stone vesselsseems to stem from a ruling that stone vessels do not contact uncleanness (Kelim 10:1), this considerationwas obviously irrelevant to ossuaries. It must have been only because of their familiarity with the workingof this soft stone that suchartisanswerecalleduponto prepareboxes neededfor ossilegium.For the decoration of theseboxes,the artisansnaturally chose motifs which reflected the funerarycontext. The artisansapplied these themeswhile enlarging,reducing, or mixing elementsin what we should like to call "freeplay."Beloware a few characteristicexamples. Ossuary ornamentation The hard stone ossuaries, as well as some of the stone sarcophagi prepared by Jerusalem's stonemasons, must have

been expensive.They are like those disWhen found, their quarriescontain(in covered in the tomb of Helene, Queen additionto the wastersand coresof the of Adiabene("Tombsof the Kings")or vessels, attesting to this having also in King Herod's Family Tomb. Their beentheirworkshop)spaceswhichcor- ornamentationresemblesthat foundon and boxes (Magen 1976; Mutz 1978).

1982

Above: soft stone ossuary with typical chip-carveddecoration of geometric rosettes inside metopes, from a tomb in the Kidron Valley. The incised Greek inscription, paying little attention to the decoration, reads "Mairam,"instead of the correct "Mariam,"as the name appearson the ossuary'sflat lid. Below: ossuary from a tomb at the slopes of Olivet. Its decoration shows the gabled entrance of the tomb, with amphoraover the gable and adjoining tomb monument-a column-formed nefesh, capped by a cone or small pyramid. Inscriptionsupon the lid, at right angle to the decorated front, carry the name of the deceased in Hebrew ("Shaul")and Greek ("Saulos").See Rahmani 1968. the facades of the tombs, or even inside them, where "a sarcophagus hewn into the rock" (cf. t. Ohol. 10:7) is occasionally discovered. The soft stone ossuaries were the standard type and were made by the stone carvers working in their local ateliers. In one case, name lists have been found which attest to the payment

received by each worker (Dussaud 1923; Milik 1971). Few of these ossuaries were decorated. For those which were, the artisans transferred the motifs, culled mainly from the tomb facades, to the stone with some of the tools they used to prepare stone vessels. These were the linea: probably the kan (Kelim 12:8)-a piece of string, often chalked

or reddened, to mark a straight line; for the same purpose, the regula (probably identical with the kana, Kelim 12:8); and possibly a ruler. For any circle or simple drawings of rosettes, indeed for any curved line, even of a plant ornament, a compass would be used, the circinus (the pargol: Kelim 19:5, from Greek perigea). Lines would be engraved with the kintra (Kelim 14:3, from Greek kentron). For the deep cuts of chip carving, the tools used were the scalprum (possibly identical with the ismel; Kelim 13:4), a carving knife, and the caelum (perhaps the maphseleth; Kelim 13:4), a gouge with a rounded or angular edge. Stone carvers copied the much richer work of the stonemasons as seen upon the city's tombs. The form of the ornament was adapted to the medium of the soft stone and the limited possibilities of the tools and skills of the artisans, often much inferior to the masons'. In most cases decoration was reduced to simple lines whereby rosettes, branches, an amphora, or a tree were often stylized beyond recognition. Frequently the decoration was executed in shallowly incised lines only, cutting into the red-washed surface of the stone box. The tomb as a whole was shown but rarely upon an ossuary. In one case we have such a representation, showing in very simple lines the gabled entrance of a tomb, crowned by a central acroterium in the form of an amphora. Underneath, an additional tomb entrance seems to be shown. At the side rises the nefesh, the monument in the form of a column, capped by a cone or a pyramid (for this see our discussion in BA 45:1 [1982] 47). Most of the details shown here we may still observe on tombs in the Kidron Valley and on the Sanhedria Tombs in the city. A tomb facade might be shown without the nefesh and yet still be fairly accurate: a with the antae distylos-in-antis, elongated above to become side acroteria, and the central acroterium a simple rectangle. The metope frieze appears above the columns. Even on this example we find the artisan at "free play": the metope motif is used as a convenient frame. The zigzag, simply and quickly executed, replaces at times the metopes on such a representation. Very often it was used, because of this facility of execution, as frame or, in ossuaries of the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

113

thinlyincisedvariety,as coveringornament. The metopesbecamethemselvesa muchfavoredmotif.All the artisanhad to do was to copy part of a tomb's frieze. The ratherelaboraterosettesof the stonemasons were replaced with simple, 4- or 6-leavedcompass-drawn rosettes (for the constructionof such rosettes,see Smith 1973:73-76).These werebasedon a divisionof the circleby two rightanglelines throughits center, or by half circles of the main circle's radius, intersectingat its center (very simple geometric manipulations indeed). A rare case (Bagatti 1958: pl. 26:68) shows the adoptionof such a frieze on an ossuary'sfront, including more than two metopes. Normally, however, this adaptationwould show only two metopes with most borders, triglyphs(in many cases shownas diglyphs) and frames around rosettes designedin zig-zag.The triglyphwas in many cases exchangedfor an independent motif, taken from any part, large or small, of the tomb or its near surroundings.Of these otherswe shallgive some examples. The nefeshappearson the narrow side of one ossuary,in one of its complete forms: a monolith, rising upon steps much like the so-called Zechariah'sTomb in the KidronValley;the ashlar-builtpyramidhasits protype in Jason's Tomb. The additional ornaments,shown at base and apex of the pyramid,must have been original additions,perhapsof metal(see BA 45. 1 [1982]45-47 and Rahmani1968).On the same ossuary'sfront, however,we find this nefesh-for lack of space,narrowedto look like a column. The column we find replacingthe triglyphmay have been copied from a local tomb facade, the capital (in our examplean Ionic one) adaptedby the artisan to his medium and tools. His "free play" permits him to place the column upon steps, copied from a nefesh. Another artisan exchanged a column's capital for a conch, copied from some local tomb's entrance (Avigad 1950-51: 105, fig. 9), and poised the whole upon a nefesh's steps, this time conceived as built of ashlars. The conch is flanked by small discs, culor the antae capitals of Tomb"on Olivet.Below:ossuaryfroma tombon MountScopus, aled from a friezesimilar Above:"Zechariah's to "Absalom's monument, with of lid the of ashlarwalls on the sides and box, with representation superimthus not be should (They Monument." which were for the front on the circlets prepared rosettes, except uncompleted posed defined anymore as "nail heads" for thespacingof thedesign.

114

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

of a nefeshupon the steps,capped Narrowside of an ossuary,with representations by an ashlarpyramid,withanchorshapedornamenton its apex. [Rahmani 1961: 102, no. 10].) Ashlar-walls may cover the sides of an ossuary and even the lid; at times they are overlaid with rosettes. This ashlar motif again is taken from Jerusalem's tomb facades (Avigad 1950-51: 104, fig. 7). As we stated previously, this motif was purely ornamental, without any intention to express the idea of an "external house," at the time not a Jewish concept at all. We encountered the amphora as a central ornament upon local and neighboring funeral monuments, e.g., the Khazna at Petra and monuments described previously (BA 45.1 [1982] 47). The amphora shows up alone, at times still upon its base, in other cases

already detached from the base. It may be geometrized and stylized almost beyond recognition until a further copyist uses it, most likely without realizing or overmuch caring what the motif stood for originally. The motif of two plants, mentioned in ancient literature, appears as a recognizable image upon ossuaries. The white lily (lilium candidum), the shoshana of the Bible (Cant 2:1-2; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3; etc.), is known to the Mishna as shoshan-a presumably mountain wild flower growing amongst tombs (Tohar. 3:7) where it would be found in most shady earth-pockets (Feliks 1957: 234-38). On ossuaries its appearance ranges from free-hand

in an almost representations naturalistic form to many geometrized and stylized variations, often tucked away in a corner or forming part of a compound ornament. The date palm may well have been the "shading tree" near tombs mentioned in the Tosephta (Nid. 6:17). It is known as the "hill-country date palm" (Bik. 1:3); its fruits were unusable, so the trees were grown for their beauty only (Feliks 1957: 40). Upon a large ossuary, in the possession of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem (Milik 1958: 26366), such a palm is shown in front of the tomb entrance with its roots partly exposed, as happens in nature. In most cases, the palm is shown stylized, executed in a purely geometric way, though the fruits under the fronds are still sometimes indicated. Eventually, the roots are represented as a simple, geometric repetition of the crown. In other cases, the roots were abstracted even further and indicated by a row of triangles; the margin of the tree's roots was marked by short lines running from the rosettes' frame to the lower frame of the metopes. Further copying produced an ornamental element which in most cases must have been inexplicable to the artisan himself. One artisan went so far as to reinterpret his ornament as a sword, an example of a process named by Boas of (1955: 123-24) "reading-in" conventional into old patsignificance terns. This was done by adding realistic details (in our case the bone handle of the sword) to the traditional geometric motif (in our case the vestige of the palm's central frond), thus creating a new image, the sword. The change makes sense given the period in question. The original geometric element, however, and the now completely meaningless short lines between rosetteframes and the lower metope frame give away the story (Rahmani 1959). Meanings of the Ornaments Early, when only a few ossuaries were known, scholars interpreted ornamental themes in quite different, sometimes contradictory, ways. For example, the rosette might be interpreted by some as a variation of the star of Astarte flanking a facade and by others as a Torah Shrine. Later, as more ossuaries became available for analysis, it was possible to see consistencies in the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

115

"the form must seem symbolic to a group." However, Goodenough failed to cite any contemporary literary sources or any written evidence upon the tombs and the ossuaries themselves, which would have mentioned any symbolic value of such ornaments (as remarked already by Smith 1967: 5758). Moreover, should such ornaments have carried any pagan connotation, one would have found these mentioned with disapproval, indeed as interdicted in contemporary Jewish literature. Goodenough thinks the amphora is a Dionysiac cup, but as we have shown it is simply an ornamental detail. On tomb monuments and the gables of tomb facades, the amphora's original meaning as an ash urn had already been lost. At times it might still represent a prize or other distinction of the deceased where it shows up on the monument. It had this meaning in Greek or Hellenistic monuments from which the local craftsmen copied the theme. But its appearance on an ossuary's front surely did not give this amphora any Dionysiac meaning. Any heretical group of Jews in Jerusalem who expressed Dionysiac beliefs upon vessels destined for the living or for the dead would soon enough have been detected; their very existence would not have gone unnoticed in legal writings of the period, indeed by Josephus, who details beliefs of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as well as different political factions. Practices and customs of such a heretical group would have been mentioned with strong disapproval. What we find, however, about Above: ossuary from a tomb at Givat Hamivtar,with representationof a lid-covered ossilegium and the use of ossuaries in amphoraon a tomb gable or cone of a nefesh (cf. BA 45.1 [1982]: 47, the Khazna the contemporary literary sources is at Petra). The branches, framing the three sides of the front, should be compared complete approval, detailing regulawith the facade of the "Tombsof the Kings."Below: white lily. tions in the execution of this custom for orthodox, presumably Pharisaic Jews. ornamentation. Scholars then began identifies by his own feelings (1958: Bagatti and Milik (1958: 63-69, developing comprehensive frameworks 220). He conceives these motives as a 166-79 and 1971: 263-70; cf. Testa 1962: to interpret the decorations which came lingua franca, basically Dionysiac 426-513) wished to see these ossuaries, to be viewed as symbols. Below, we (1965: 73). In connection with these and indeed the custom of ossilegium as have a critical examination of two general views of Goodenough, atten- here described, as exclusively Judeotion should be drawn to Smith's Christian. Much of their argument representative frameworks. Goodenough (1953: 133), true to criticism (1967) and Nock's reviews rested with their interpretation of the his system in general, wished to see the (1955; 1957; 1960). On our part we hold marks found upon the sides and lids of ornamental motifs on these Jewish os- that a lack of consistency, where the ossuaries, in which they detected an suaries as "symbols of hope of another same motive "almost certainly con- ever growing degree of mystic and hidlife for those whose bones were in the veyed" (1953: 119) one thing on one os- den meaning, supposedly expressing the boxes, symbols of hope and perhaps suary and something else on another os- beliefs of these Judeo-Christians. We direct aids to its fulfillment." He sees suary, eliminates the hypothesis that the have already shown that the overthe "value" of the symbol in its emo- ornaments have symbolic value. As whelming majority of these marks are tional impact (1965: 70) which he often Goodenough himself stated (1965: 68), nothing more than a technical device,

116

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

Detailof rootsof palmtree.

Ossuaryat EcoleBiblique.

Centerof ossuarydepictingstylizedpalm tree. No. 56.1931, Departmentof Antiquities,Israel.

ensuringthe properclosureof the box. A few are monograms of maker or ownerof the receptable.In general,our remarksas to Goodenough'sinterpretationas pagansymbolismof the motifs upon these ossuaries hold good in regardto the question of their JudeoChristiansymbolicvalue.SurelyJewish legal sourcesof that periodwouldhave prohibitedthese practices, supposedly exclusively of Judeo-Christian connotation,just as they condemnedthem with other heretics, the minim (cf. Sperber 1971). But in fact the sources write favorably and in detail of ossuaries.The sheer numberof these ossuariesfound in Jerusalemand its surroundings precludes their having belonged only to the small band of Judeo-Christians dwellingthere;few of these people could have afforded a familytomb of theirown or furnishedit with rather costly ossuaries. Additionally,believerswouldsurelynot have applied holy or significantsymbols of their faith in the careless manner witnessedby the nail scratchings,nor would they have permittedtheir symbols to change form so frequently, becoming more and more abstractly stylized. It also seems certain that in such a highly literate society, religious symbolswouldhave been accompanied by explanatoryinscriptions,yet none have been found beyondan occasional

shalom, and certainlynone have been found hintingat Christianity.This line of reasoningfinds supportfrom a later period in the Holy Land (e.g., Beth Shearim) and in Rome's Jewish catacombs, wheresymbolsand inscriptions go together. Hence, while it is possible, given local conditionsat the time in question, that Judeo-Christians mightoccasionally have kept the custom and used such ossuaries, in the main these were intended for Jews. Thus, the ossuaries were decoratedwith motifs taken from the city's sepulchralart, whichis logical giventhe Jewishattitudeof a sharpdistinctionbetweenthe spheresof life and death. Death, especially during the periodin question,was believedto be a sphere of defilementand uncleanness, sharplydifferentiatedfrom the sphere of life and the holy. Thus, nothingconnectedwithdailylife, muchlesswiththe Temple or the Torah, would at that time be representedin sepulchralart. Only later, toward the end of the 3rd century,do we encounterin tombsboth in the country and abroad more and more representationsof some of these items that have acquiredthe status of symbols. But by then the use of ossuaries had been discontinued. The latest of these have been found near KibbutzLahav in the Judeanfoothills (Gofna-Sussman1974). They date to

the early 3rdcenturyA.D.and resemble contemporarysarcophagi, with acroteria upon their gabled lids. One still sports a six-leavedrosette. To the ruleof lackof symbolsupon the ossuaries, we have found to date some fourexceptions.Two of the exceptions show the menorah.The inscription on one makes it likely that members of a priestly family were its owners;it may perhapsbe more of an occupationalemblemthan a real death symbol. The ruling which forbadethe representationof this most holy object was circumventedby "masking,"with some branches omitted, some placed wrongly.The other two exceptionsare pagan representations, perhaps fashioned by Nabateans acting under the influence of the Jewish custom. Such exceptionscannotoccupyus here further;they may be worth separate study in the future. Finally, Christianreliquarieshave at times been linked with Jewish ossuaries (e.g., Grabar 1964). The differencesfar overshadowthe similarities. Reliquarieswere intendedto preserve the bones of martyrs and saints and were stored under the altar of the church (Leclercq 1907). The relics transferred benefits to worshippers, directlyor indirectly(BagattiandMilik 1962; Rahmani 1966; 1979). Another contrastarises from the time the prac-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

117

receivethe bodies of the deceased.For additionalburials,the older bones are evacuatedto the rear of the loculi or into a commoncharnel,still withinthe tomb's compound.One or more forecourts were added to the tomb's entrance,whichnow may be fashioned to showan ornatefacade,witha nefesh, a memorial,upon or beside the tomb. With the end of that period, however,new ideas of individualresurrection appeared, emphasizing the separatedepositionof bonesbareof the decomposed flesh. This was seen as proof of the deceased'satonement,his state of sinlessness,and consequently his readiness for resurrection,which was conceivedin the full physicalsense: the dead were to be re-createdout of their entire skeleton. This ossilegium took place about 12 months after burial, thus extending the work of mourningto that period.It seems that this extension catered to the psychologicalneeds of the time and place in question.This set of ideasdeveloped, in the frameworkof the theologicalconcepts of Jerusalem'sPharisaicmiddleclass circles, gaining eventuallywidespreadacceptance.In accordancewith it, the custom was introducedof collectingthe bonesof an individual,often together with those of very near kin, into a separateand permanentreceptacle, the ossuary. Many of these, fashioned of the local soft stone, are decoratedby the artisans with motifs taken from the local tombs and executed in a geometric style, either in on flat lid of an incised seven-branched menorah,represented ossuary. chip carvingor in shallowincision.All Thinly suchossuariesare kept withinthe famiCourtesyof IsraelMuseum,Jerusalem. ly tomb, at times in a specialchamber, in most cases filling up some of the loculi or other areas inside the tomb. tices developed,ossilegiumas described weapons, and food-indeed at times After the mid 3rd century A.D., hereceasingabout200 yearsbeforereli- evencostly foreignvessels-all supplied changingeconomic,politicalanddemoquariesoccurred. by the living relatives. Such concepts graphic conditions, as well as marcontinuedin Jewish tombs of the city tyriologyanddispersion,madeimpossiConclusion between the early monarchyand the ble any insistenceon the preservationof In this series of articles we have destructionof the First Temple. The the whole skeleton or of any remains at reviewed Jerusalem's burial customs deceased rested now upon benches, all, as prerequisite to resurrection. As a and tombs, witnessingto a wide range hewn at right angles into the burial result, the custom of reburying bones in of concepts.The city built betweenthe chamber,still accompaniedby grave- ossuaries disappeared. Rock and the Sourcehas revealedto us goods. Formerburialswere evacuated Occasionally, boxes of some kind Early to Middle Canaanite tombs, into a charnel-pitinsidethe Tombof the were still used to transfer the remains of perhapsat times representingreburials Fathers.Similarconceptscontinuedto Jews from abroad to the Holy Land for of nomads in a central family tomb. the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, burial and to await their resurrection. Middle CanaaniteII and Late Cana- reflectingthe social conditionsof the Eventually the slopes of Olivet, used anite tombs continued the concept upper and middle classes of the day. continuously by Jews as graveyards of the ancestral tomb, now for local The tomb'sburialchamber,however,is since the 8th century B.c., except for families, who went into the nether- now changed,with loculi hewninto the brief periods of interdiction by conquerworld well supplied with clothing, rock at right angles to its walls to ing enemies, again served this purpose. 118

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

Therethe deadmightrestto the Endof Days above the Valley of Jehoshaphat and at the feet of Jerusalemthe Holy.

Bibliography Avigad, N. 1950-51 The Rock Carved Facades of the Israel Jerusalem Necropolis. Exploration Journal 1: 96-106. Bagatti, B., and Milik, J. T. 1958 Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit I: La Necropole del Periode Romano. Jerusalem: Franciscans. 1962 L'archeologia Cristiana in Palestina. Firenze: Sansoni. 1971 Pp. 263-70 in The Church of the Circumcision. History and Archeology of the Judeo-Christians. Jerusalem: Franciscans. Boas, F. 1955

Primitive Art. New York: Dover Publications.

Colella, P. Les Abreviations et XP. Revue bibli1973 que 80: 547-58. Dussaud, R. 1923 Comptes d'ouvriers d'une entreprise funeraire. Syria 4: 241-49. J. Engemann, Pallistinensische Pilgerampullen im 1973 F. J. D5lger Institut in Bonn. JahrbuchJlir A ntike und Christentum 16: 5-27. Feliks, J. 1957

Plant World of the Bible. Tel-Aviv: Masada (Hebrew).

Gafni, Y. 1977

Bringing Deceased from Abroad for Burial in Eretz Israel-on the Origin of the Custom and its Development. Cathedra 4 [July]: 113-20. Goodenough, E. R. 1953 Pp. 110-39 in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period I: The Archeological Evidencefrom Palestine. New Haven: Bollingen. 1958 Pp. 219-22 in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period VIII: Pagan Symbols in Judaism. New Haven: Bollingen. 1965 Pp. 64-77 in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period XII: Summary and Conclusions. New Haven: Bollingen. Gophna, R., and Sussman, V. 1974 A Jewish Burial Cave of the Roman Period at the Foot of Tel Halif. Atiqot 7: 69-76. Grabar, A. 1964 Recherches sur des sources Juives de

l'art Palaeochr6tien. Cahiers Archeologiques 14: 49-53. Hachlili, R. The Goliath Family in Jericho. Bul1979 letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 235: 31-66. Kane, J. P. 1976 By No Means the "Earliest Records of Christianity." Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 103: 103-8. Leclercq, H. 1907 s.v. autel. Cols. 3168-69 in F. Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie. Paris: Letouzay. 1914 s.v. chrisme. Cols. 1481-83 in ibid. Lieberman, S. 1963 Tosephta Kiphshuta V. New York: 1235 (Hebrew). Magen, Y. 1976 The Manufacture of Stone Vessels in Jerusalem in the 2nd Temple Period. Tel Aviv: The Society for the Protection of Nature (Hebrew). Meyers, E. M. 1971 Jewish Ossuaries, Reburial and Rebirth. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Meyers, E. M., Kraabel, A. T., and Strange, J. F. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Kh. Shema. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 42. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Meyers, E. M., Meyers, C. L., and Strange, J. F. 1978a Excavations at Meiron. Pp. 91-94 in Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 43. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. E. and Meyers, C. L. M., Meyers, 1978b Digging up the Talmud in Ancient Meiron. Biblical Archaeology Review 4.2: 41. Milik, J. T. 1957 Trois tombeaux Juifs r6cement d6couverts au sud-est de J6rusalem. Liber Annuus 7: 232-67. 1971 Le couvercle de Bethphag6. Pp 75-96 in Hommages d Andre DupontSommer. Paris. Mourning see Zlotnik, D. Naveh, Y. An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Writ1973 ten in Paleo-Hebrew Script. Israel Exploration Journal 32: 90-91. 1980 An Aramaic Consolatory Inscription. Atiqot 14 (English Series): 5559. Nock, A. D. 1955 Goodenough ... Jewish Symbols 14. Gnomon 27: 558-72. 1957 Symbols 5Goodenough...Jewish 6. Gnomon 29: 524-33.

1960 Nutz. A. 1978

Goodenough... Jewish Symbols 78. Gnomon 32: 728-36. Die judische Steindreherei in herodianischer Zeit. Eine technologische Untersuchung. Technikgeschichte 45: 297-320.

Pfister, F. 1954 s.v. brandeum. Cols. 522-23 in Th. Klauser, Reallexikon fiPr Antike & Christentum II. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Rahmani, L. Y. 1959 Transformation of an Ornament. Atiqot 2 (English Series): 188-89. 1961 Jewish Rock Cut Tombs in Jerusalem. Atiqot 3 (English Series): 93120. Two Early Christian Ampullae. 1966 Israel Exploration Journal 16: 71-74. 1968 Jerusalem's Tomb Monuments on Jewish Ossuaries. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 220-25. 1973 Review of E. M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries, Reburial and Rebirth. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 121-26. 1978 Ossuaries and Bone-Gathering in the Late Second Temple Period. Qadmoniot 11: 102-12 (Hebrew). 1979 The Adoration of the Magi on Two Sixth Century C. E. Eulogia Tokens. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 34-36. A Jewish Rock Cut Tomb on Mount 1980a Scopus. Atiqot 14 (English Series): 49-54. 1980b Depiction of Menorot on Ossuaries. Qadmoniot 12: 114-17 (Hebrew). Smith, M. 1967 Goodenough's "Jewish Symbols" in Retrospect. Journal of Biblical Literature 86: 53-68. Smith, R. H. 1973 An Early Roman Sarcophagus of Palestine and Its School. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 105: 71-82. 1974 The Cross Marks on Jewish Osuarries. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 106: 53-66. Sperber, D. 1971 s. v. min. Encyclopaedia Judaica 12. E. L. Sukenik, 1924 Notes on the Jewish Graffiti of Bethphage. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 4:171-74. 1947 The Earliest Records of Christianity. American Journal of Archaeology 51:351-61. Testa, P. E. 1962 I1 Simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani. Jerusalem: Franciscans. Zlotnick, D. The Tractate Mourning (Semahot). 1966 New Haven/London: Yale University.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

119

Notes News

&

Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1938 season. Tell el-Kheleifeh 1938-1940: A Forthcoming Reappraisal Tell el-Kheleifeh is located in southern Jordan, some 500 m from the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, roughly equidistant between modern Aqaba and Eilat. This low mound was excavated by Nelson Glueck in three seasons between 1938 and 1940. Glueck discerned five occupational periods, the earliest dating to the 10th century and the latest belonging to the Persian period. The identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh with biblical Ezion-geber, first proposed by Fritz von Frank, was maintained by Glueck during the three seasons of excavation. The identification, in large measure, provided the historical framework within which the site's occupational history was written. Though Glueck's later publications would temper the identification, the history of Tell el-Kheleifeh would indelibly bear the historical contours of biblical Ezion-geber. The results of a current reappraisal of Glueck's excavations, under the auspices of ASOR, have undermined the primary datum which appeared to support the identification, namely, a ceramic horizon consistent with the chronology of biblical Ezion-geber. The chronology represented by the total ceramic corpus dates, in broadest scope, from the 8th through the 5th centuries B.c. The bulk of the corpus may be assigned to the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.These same chronological horizons were presented by a survey of the site, conducted by the writer in August 1980. On the assumed Tell elKheleifeh/ Ezion-geber identification, the expected 10th- and 9th-century pottery belonging to the time of Solomon (1 Kgs

120

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

9:26-28; 2 Chr 8:17) and Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:47, 48; 2 Chr 20:35-37) is wanting. Though one may appeal to the distinction between architectural and ceramic periods or argue the identification from the perspectives of probability or possibility, the data demand that Tell el-Kheleifeh be considered apart from the biblical notices on Ezion-geber. The assumed identification has surely been the proverbial "Achilles heel" in the attempt to write the site's occupational history. Glueck's writings on Tell el-Kheleifeh include preliminary articles on the 1938-40 seasons, a significant revision (1965) of his earlier interpretations, and selected studies on the pottery and epigraphic materials. The site remains unpublished, however, in terms of a technical presentation of the stratigraphy, architecture, ceramic, and other artifact data. Defined in broadest scope, this project will reappraise and publish the technological data of the three seasons of excavation. Apart from contributions relative to the epigraphic materials and technical studies of the ceramics and metals, the project is under the writer's direction. A brief presentation of the collections, Glueck's stratigraphy, and the directions of research follows. The Tell el-Kheleifeh materials are reposited in three locations. The largest corpus is located in the Semitic Museum of Harvard University. This ASOR collection, on permanent loan to the Semitic Museum, contains the excavation records and photographic archives in addition to artifacts. The collection of the Jordan Archaeological Museum in Amman is substantial, approximately 125 locatable pieces, and is particularly rich in certain of the ceramic horizons and beads. The smallest collection is reposited in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and contains many of the finer and most significant pieces. The epigraphic materials are located in each of the collections with the majority of ostraca, incised sherds, an so-called Qwscnl seal impressions contained in the ASOR group. Though the division of finds appears to have been arbitrary, each collection contains the main artifact categories. Glueck's definitive stratification is preserved, not in his publications, but in the final period plans preparedby architect Jacob Pinkerfeld. A brief presentation follows, beginning with the earliest occupational period. Period IA consisted solely of one monumental structure which measured 13.2 m2. The building comprised three small rooms at the northern end and three larger rectangular rooms at the southern end. The plan of this building, though in a context of later stratigraphy,is a wellattested architectural type of the Iron Age, widely known as the "four-room house." Glueck's Period IB was distinguished by the addition of a 1-m glacis to the structure's exterior. This isolated building, thought originally to be a smelter, was surrounded in Period IC by a casemate fortification, measuring approximately 45 m2. The space between the central building and the line of fortification was thought to comprise an open courtyard. The settlement's plan was radically changed in Period II. Though the large building was retained, the northern and western perimeters of the casemate wall were cut by the construction of a solid wall with offsets and insets. The site's new dimensions were approximately 57 (E-W) by 62 (N-S) m. The southern and eastern sections of casemates were retained,

enclosing the smelter/granary in the northwest quadrant of the new plan. The new orientation thereby created an inner courtyard in the settlement's northwest corner. Inner and outer courtyards were thought still to be open in Period II. The settlement's access was through a four-chambered gate, located in the southern section of the offsets/insets wall. Period III was distinguished by changes in the fourchambered gate and new construction within the inner and

(Period III and later) is similar to the settlement of Arad XVIII. Given the broad chronological horizons of certain of these architectural traditions, especially the "four-room house" and fortification elements, the promise of comparative studies is restricted to the possible refinement of the feature's stratigraphic context. With certain of the architectural elements, however, there is promise in terms of cultural affinities suggested by the geographical distribution and associated ceramic horizons of these traditions. Several pottery horizons are represented in the large repertoire of wheel- and handmade wares. The Negevite pottery is the largest corpus, represented mainly by cooking pots but also including lamps, juglets, chalices, plates, teapots, and bowls. A significant number of wheelmade forms are represented in handmade imitation. Glueck's earliest occupational level was dated by this then unique corpus of handmade pottery thought to belong to the 10th and perhaps early 9th centuries B.C. Negevite pottery, which actually has a slightly broader geographical range than the name implies, is now attested from as early as the latter part of the Late Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age. The ware is of little value chronologically and is itself dated by associated wheelmade forms. The Assyrian bowls, in local imitation, constitute the second largest group. Studied in terms of the late Judean repertoire, the pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh is recognizable and foreign at the same time. The main diagnostic types of the late Iron Age are noticeably absent. Since the Tell el-Kheleifeh fabrics are markedly different, one must distinguish between "Judean pottery" and "Judean influence." The Amman tomb groups and south Jordanian horizons offer a number of parallels. There also appear a few sherds that may belong to the so-called Midianite tradition. The latter, of course, constitute a chronological exception to the occupational horizons presented above. As Glueck recognized, the emphasis is on regionalism. Previously, the ceramic assemblage has been discussed typologically, without reference to Glueck's stratigraphy. This publication format of the pottery will be twofold: a typological presentation and one delineating the ceramic horizons associated with the revised stratigraphy. Apart from Glueck's publications concerned with the so-called Edomite pottery, the Kheleifeh records do not delineate the ceramic horizons associated with the architectural periods. A painstaking effort must be made to reconstruct the data, with limited prospects given the system of recording artifacts relative to field provenance. This presentation has been concerned only with the main directions of research relative to the site's stratigraphy, architecture,and ceramic traditions. Brief comment also should be made on the collection of epigraphic materials. The corpus includes several ostraca, a few incised sherds, the so-called Jotham (lytm) signet, and several legible Edomite lapidary seal impressions. The latter have been read lqwsnl 'bd hmlk. The legibility of the several impressions varies from a single letter or register to the few examples in which the entire impression is preserved. These seals appear on four pottery forms, the most unexpected being a cooking pot, typologically datable to the 7th and early 6th centuries B.c. Tell el-Kheleifeh 1938-1940 will be published in the memory of Nelson Glueck who remains the paradigm, the focal point of interaction, for the archeology and historical geography of the Negev and Transjordan. He was the true pioneer, one who has gone before, into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow.

WXi~~ ,~,~~g~~aF~an~a~~-~ss~-ls ~Ra!?na

MOR~

If

.

sw

. ........ Sm

IA,

Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1940 season.

outer courtyards. Periods IV, IVA, and IVB retain the same basic plan as Period III with continued development of the courtyard areas. The southern and eastern rows of inner casemates begin gradually throughout Period IV to blend into their architectural context. The stratigraphic criteria for the phasing of Period IV are lean. Period V, the latest occupational level, was fragmentary and restricted to a small section in the center of the mound. The historical interpretation of Tell elKheleifeh was the product of integrating the site's stratigraphic sequence with the biblical notices on Ezion-geber/ Elath. The problems are consequently significant in terms of reappraising the site's stratigraphy as discerned by Glueck and Pinkerfeld. The extent of stratigraphicrefinement will obviously be determined by the limitations of data retrieval from the inherent excavation methodology and recording system. Such limitations are further complicated by incomplete records; 1938 level books and 1939 field notes are wanting. Despite these circumstances, surely not unexpected for an excavation completed in 1940, some revision and refinement of Glueck's stratigraphy have been achieved. The site's architecture presents a number of elements for which comparative studies are instructive, especially when integrated with the ceramic traditions with a view to historical synthesis. The basic features are: Glueck's smelter/granary, the fortification systems (casemate and offsets/insets), and the four-chambered gateway. The site's plan is of particular interest. The casemate settlement (Period IC) is reminiscent of certain Negev fortresses, and the offsets/insets settlement

Gary Pratico Semitic Museum Harvard University

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

121

Baqah Valley Project 1981

The fourthseasonof the BaqahValleyProjectunderthe direction of PatrickE. McGovernof the MuseumAppliedScience Centerfor Archaeology(MASCA)of the UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania,was carriedout between25 May and 30 June 1981.Togetherwith the JordanianDepartmental representative(Saad Hadidi) and a crew of 20 workmen,an eight-membermultidisciplinedinternationalteam comprised the core staff-physical anthropologyand osteology (Scott Rolston and Lydia Hume), surveying(Robert Gordon, Jr.), field supervision(VincentClark, William Glanzman,Sabah Mahmoud,CherieLenzen,and ZbigniewFiema).Effortsthis year concentratedon two main areas of interest,whichcomplementedour earlierwork in the region. Test soundingsof cesium magnetometeranomalieswere again conducted,because of the immediatethreat of bulldozing and house constructionon Jebel al-Hawayah,accompaniedby renewedtomb robbing.Thus, it becameimperative that anotherseason be conductedonly ten months after the completionof the 1980 campaign.The magnetichigh chosen for a test excavationin 1980had substantiatedour theoretical projections:a completelysilted-up,undisturbedIron IA (ca. 1200-1050B.c.)burialcave (A4) was discoveredexactlyin the areaof the magneticanomaly(BA 44 [1981]:126-28).The 1981 seasonenabledus to test furtherthe theoreticalimplicationsof the magnetometerdata and preventany furtherdisturbanceof these uniqueLB and early Iron Age archeologicalmaterials. Nine magneticanomaliesof variousarealdimensionswere testedby archeologicalsoundingson Jebelal-Hawayah.In accord with our theory, all the highs were due to excess soil deposition.However,since the magnetometerreadingswould be the same for both filled-innaturalcavesand those usedfor humanburials(as determinedby priorsusceptibilitytests of soil samples), the highs in these instances representedvarious geological features, viz. sinkholes, solution pits, caves, and other naturaldepressions,none of which had been used for burials.The lows that weretestedcoincidedwith bedrockoutcrops.An exceptionallylargehigh, such as that leadingto the discovery of the Iron IA cave, points to human activity, specificallyin the enlargementof what was most likely a prewas supportedby the existingnaturalcave. This interpretation examinationof otherpotentialburialcaves(i.e., whatappeared to be cave mouthswith blockingstones and soil plugs)at the back of terracesclearedby bulldozing;test excavationsof the most likely candidates confirmed that these were strictly naturalphenomena.Thus, it now appearslikely that this area of Jebel al-Hawayahwas not used extensivelyas a burial groundand was confinedlargelyto the clusterof threeLB and early Iron caves, fully examinedin earlierseasons. The magneticdata and 30 odd robbed-outburialcaveson Jebelal-Qesir,the hill to the southof Jebelal-Hawayahandthe WadiUmm ad-Dananir,also suggestedmorecavesin thisarea. Test soundingsof three larger anomaliesreinforcedthe interpretationoutlinedaboveandled to thediscoveryof a natural cave, an artificialniche, perhapsused for burialrites, and an undisturbedarea of a partlyrobbed-outburialcave (B3). This cave hadalreadyattractedourattentionduringthe 1978survey becauseit appearedto be the only knowncave datingsolelyto LB II (ca. 1400-1200B.C.)in the region. Moreover,if a 15 nanoteslahigh, 4 x 6 m in area and located 4 m from the entrance,provedto be anotherchamberor extensionof the cave, it wouldbe the largestburialcave on Jebelal-Qesir.Excavationrevealedthat the high was indeedcausedby a large accumulationof stonesand soil that hadwashedin throughthe hole at the back of the cave. This compactedmass of fill coveredtwo undisturbedburiallayers. In the topmostlayer,threeskeletonswereclusteredaround an invertedbichromebowl. The upperparts of these bodies

122

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

X 60-

N

'so./

JJ

so

(ce

5646-

•

8

5250-

75s7

"

483644-

423632-

8

30-

28-

0

so

5-

26-

20-

12-

610-

-'

-o-

s5

5-I

2-4---b

-4

-

-6

-8-10-

S2

Grid 11

1'214161' 2,0222426283032 36 384~ 4042 l'o1 0 34• o2m 1y

648

Magneticcontour map of Grid 11 on Jebel al-Qesir.The magnetichigh (hatching)at X = 17, Y = 22 correlatedwith a 3-m-deepbuild-upof soil that had silted into Cave B3. Other highs were causedby filled-inniches (e.g., X = 14, Y = 7) and robbers' dumps (X = 9, Y = 33). Traverses X = 0 to

X = -10 were done in the early afternoonafter completing X = 0 to X = 60 in the morning.High resolution1-m grids werecarriedout in the letteredareas.Drawingby H. Schenck. were reasonablyintact,but each individual,as well as another three nearby, lacked legs. Their legs had apparentlybeen detachedfrom their bodies before the flesh had completely decayedsince there was no sign of disturbance.Intermingled withtheseandanotherthreeindividualswerepiecesof charcoal and completelycharredlong bones.It is temptingto relatethe latterto the charredhumanbonesfoundat theAmmanAirport Building,which have been interpretedas cremationremains, but it is also possiblethat they werefroma fire used for more mundanepurposes,as suggestedby a blackenedcookingpot from the same context. Belowa 10-cmsterilelayerlay a secondlevelof burialremains.Thoughthe potteryand artifactsweresimilarin typeto those in the level above, their stratigraphicrelationshipobviouslydatedthem to an earlierphaseof LB II. The partially articulatedskeletons of six individualswere recoveredfrom here-again, without legs-including a preadolescentfemale witha rareconditionof spinalcurvature.It may or may not be significantthat this body was the most ornatelydecorated. Besides a double-stringednecklaceof more than a hundred beads-one stringsolely of shortbronzecylindricalbeads,the otherof glass beadsin variouscolorsand shapes-there was a large, roughlycut carnelianbarrelbead placedat the back of the neck, together with flanking pairs of small spherical carnelianbeads. The child probablyalso wore five earrings

from her rightear, wherea groupof simplehoop earringswas found corrodedtogether.No earringswere found on the left side of her head. This lowerlayer,immediatelyoverlyingthe cavefloor,was tracedalong a centralarea from the mouthto the back of the cave. The concentrationof bonesnearthe frontof the cavewas less thanat the back:only a singlecranium,severalarticulated legs, and a stackof long bonesall laid out in the samedirection were found.Potteryvesselswerepositionedeitherin line along the cave wall or in a randomfashionamong the skeletons.A group of two pins and two toggle-pinswere foundat the cave entrance. Many whole pots, primarilybowls and lamps,a partially decomposedcalcitevessel and fragmentsof a bronzebowl, an excellentcollectionof jewelry (glass, faience, EgyptianBlue, workedshell and bone,copper/bronze,and semipreciousstone beads; copper/bronzerings, earrings,bracelets,and togglepins),a faiencecyclinderseal, and copper/bronzejavelinheads and arrowswere foundwith the burials.Of specialimportance was a fragmentof an iron anklet/braceletcomparableto the Iron IA type, whichmay supporta pre-1200B.c.development of the iron/mildsteel industryon the Transjordanian plateau. Fauna includedsheep/goat and fish. A single grain of carbonized bread wheat (Triticumdurum)was the first direct evidencefor LB agriculturein the valley. CaveB3 providesthe all-importantconnectionbetweenthe LB I and Iron IA remainsof CavesA2 and A4. For example,

The outlines of a large building, probably dating to the 1st century A.D., begin to emerge just beneath the surface on an upper terrace of Khirbet Umm ad-Dananir. In the background is the Wadi Umm ad-Dananir, where an ancient road likely

descendedto the JordanValley.

the wide technological divergence between the LB I fine wares and the coarse, badly fired, Iron IA fabrics is bridged by the evidence from LB II. Seven of the LB II vessels from Cave B3 were handmade, and, pending a full petrographic study, the firing and tempering of the LB II wares appears to be closer to that of Iron IA than that of LB I. On the other hand, the LB II

pottery types, which are often slipped and have painted One of threeskeletons,lackinglegs, huddledaboutan inverted bichromedecorations,show greateraffinitywith LB I types. Nor was potteryas prevalentin the IronIA cave. Only70 vesbichrome bowl in Cave B3. sels werefoundwith220 burialsthere,whereasalmost200 vessels were foundwith about 50 individualsin Cave B3, roughly the same proportionas for the LB I cave. Glassprovidesanotherexampleof culturalchangeoverthe six centuries,as it appearsto be preferredoverfaiencein LB I, loses its preeminencein LB II, andfinallydisappearsaltogether in Iron IA. Perforated unworked shells and variously colored semiprecious stones gradually gain in popularity from LB II

throughIron IA.

Pathological and genetic studies of the bones from the three caves are now in progress. These may well hold the key in establishing racial continuity/discontinuity of the human pop-

ulation in the Umm ad-Dananirregion. Preliminaryresults have shown that all ages of each sex are representedin each cave, but not in equal numbers.For example,Cave B3 has a higherpercentageof juvenileandadolescentburialswhileCave A4 has about twice as many males as females. Similar pathological conditions (arthritis, dental caries) have been observedfor all the caves. Perhapsin keepingwith the paucity of weaponry,no unusualtraumaticinjurieshave been noted, althougha brokenrib and fingeroccurredin Cave B3. Four 4 x 4 m squareswere openedat KhirbetUmm adDananir,the proposedsettlementsite associatedwith the LB and early Iron burialcaves (a trial soundingwas carriedout here duringthe 1980 season).Just below the surface,a large structureimmediatelyemerged,whichextendedout beyondthe area of excavation.A central room was characterizedby a northern wall with seven orthostats, placed ca. 0.5 m apart,

severalstill havingthe overlyingstretchersintact.Some of the open nichesthus formedwere closed off by a wall of cobbles, behindone of whichwere foundfragmentsof glass vessels.A hard-packedclay floor associatedwiththis roomandadjoining ones had a mixture of Iron II and Early Roman (ER) III pot-

tery on its surface;an ER III (ca. 4 B.C.-A.D.73) datingis most likely,whichwill be checkedagainsta radiocarbondetermination. Some of the upper walls were built over more massive

lower walls, both employingdry wall constructionof roughly

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING 1982

123

hewn bouldersand chinking.Pure Iron IIC (ca. 650-500B.C.) materialfroma foundationtrenchprovidesa date for the lower walls. A tabun,sealedoff by a probableER III floor, was associatedwith a similarlydated wall and floor. A deepersoundingwas made in one square,exposingan \ FIELD Vill even more massive wall (ca. 1.5 m thick with two lines of roughlyhewnboulders).Thiswallwas coveredby an ashylayer whichcontinuedfor a meter alongsideit. A clay surfacewas also discovered,runningupto the wallandintowhicha deeppit hadbeencut. Beneathlargetimbersof carbonizedwood,thepit FIELD IV FIELD LDI was found to contain charredanimal bones (cow, donkey, .. and a vessels LB II pottery carnivore),large (the sheep/goat, completeprofile of an exteriorlyblackenedcooking pot and sherdsfromkraters,jugs, a storagejar, andseverallamps),and the fronthalf of a crudebull rhytonvirtuallyidenticalin style I1 FIELD andmanufacturing techniqueto an examplefromthe LB I cave (A2). The pit and its contentscan be comparedto the pits surTELL EL HESI roundingthe LB II Fosse Templeat Lachish. The LB II pit is clearevidencefor a permanentsettlement .o,, at KhirbetUmm ad-Dananirin the LateBronzeAge. Thelarge vessels and the associated massive wall suggest a well: : :'20 establishedcommunity.An architecturalplan of the site disclosed additionalheavywalls, againcomposedof doublelines of boulders,0.5-2 m thick, which appearto be the city wall FIELD enclosingan area of about 2 1/2 hectares.This would make Ix KhirbetUmm ad-Dananirone of the largestknownsitesin the FIELD II 130 Ammanregion,and one of severalhavinga stratifiedsequence of architecturalremains. In futureseasons,the goal will be to fullyexposethe upper FIELD levels and, after they have been carefully planned and photographed,removethem in orderto fullyexcavatethe LB level(s).Iron I sherdspoint to occupationin this periodsomeV-40 3FIELD whereon the site as well, so that ideally,we wouldhopeto find . interval 5m 'o• -contour a stratifiedsequenceof LB and earlyIronAge levelsmatching that of the burialcaves. Contour Map of Tell el Hesi, August 1981. 30

...

f

PatrickMcGovern Universityof Pennsylvania The Joint ArcheologicalExpeditionTo Tell El-Hesi, 1981 The Hesi Expeditionconductedits seventhseason of excavationsfrom 17Juneto 1 August1981.Thesite is locatedmidway betweenTel Avivand BeerSheva,on theboundarybetweenthe coastal plain and the Shephelah.It is a region of marginal agriculture.The Expeditionwas financedby a consortiumof Americanand Canadianinstitutionsof higher learning,by Earthwatchand the Centerfor Field Research,by individual gifts, and by volunteerfees. Eighty volunteersjoined a field staff of 35, with an additionalsupportstaff of 7. Regretfully, one week followingthe end of the excavationseason,the Expedition'sdirector,D. Glenn Rose, died of a heart attack in Jerusalem.It is with sorrowthat this reportis submittedin his absence. Goals for the 1981 season revolved around two large architectural features:a hugeplatformof wallsandintermittent fill from the Iron II period in Fields I and III; and a large defensivewall of the EB III periodin FieldsV, VI, and IX. A summaryof the summer'swork follows. FieldsI andIII werefirstopenedin the initialseasonof the modernwork at Hesi (1970). A sequenceof strata has been identified,includingthe uppermostlayerconsistingof modern militarytrenching,a large Muslimcemeteryof the Medieval periodwith relatedagriculturaluses, an extensiveHellenistic level, and an important Persian-periodlayer marked by numerous,largepits. Workin 1981includedthe excavationof yet one morePersian-period pit, in Area I.12 (Locus249).The pit'spresencein the areamadecontinuedworkon IronII levels

124

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

I

/

a.

.

.

.

.

.

impossible,so the pit was excavated,revealinga wealth of materialculturefrom the period,includingmilitaryartifacts (arrowheads,scale armor, etc.), a lekythosof Attic ware indicativeof the tradingnetworkwiththe Aegeanin the 6th/5th centuriesB.C.E.,as well as numerouspot sherds,bone fragments,seeds,and objectssuch as spindlewhorls,loomweights, and the like. Of particularinterestwas a jar fabricatedfrom local ware with the head of Bes on it. Non-Israeliteelements withinPersian-period Hesi are evident,as are mountingbits of evidenceof a large spinning/weavingindustryat the site. Additionally,severalHellenisticpits, most likelyusedfor storage, were also excavatedin the same area. Belowthe Persianlevel, the 1981season'sprimarygoal in Fields I and III was to date a large buildingphase which stretchedfrom the top of the acropolisof the site in Field I downoverthe crestof the tell into FieldIII. A largestructure, part of StratumVIId, includeda massivethree-phasewall at the base of the acropolis,a terrace,pier/fill operationon the slopes of the acropolis,and a chamber/fillconstructionphase atopthe acropoliswhichraisedthe heightof the acropolissome 7 m. This season's work included furtherexposure of the buildingoperation,an attemptto determinethetechniquesused in construction,linkagebetweenFields I and III to date the buildingphase, and in so doing, to drawa compositeplan of Hesi to accountfor the 19thcenturyworkof Petrieand Bliss. A stratigraphictrenchwas openedto link the two fields, exposinga long section of Iron II remains.Evidenceproved that the largeconstructionphasesin FieldsI and III were indeed both part of the same operation.The acropoliswas first prepared for constructionwith the digging of foundation trenchesand the levelingof the top of the acropolis.Trenching

Beneaththe Stratum VIId constructionphase, dated by potteryto the late 9th or early8th century,evidencefor earlier occupationof the tell's acropolissurfaced.Pottery from the early Iron II, Iron I, Late Bronze,and EarlyBronzeAges was identified.In Area111.107,moreover,coursesof EB mudbrick wereexposedbeneaththe massiveIron II construction.In all, seven phasesof EB materialwere observedin Areas 1.91 and III.107. Work on the EB levels at Hesi centeredin FieldsVI and IX, on the southernedge of the large EB city. Excavationin FieldVIA (Areas2, 3, 12& 13)hasledto a rephasingof the EB city's occupation.It appearsthat the site remainedunoccupied until an earliestbuildingphase, associatedwith the construction of the site's first city wall. This was the first of five EB phases of occupation.The earliest phase includeswalls with chocolate-coloredmudbricks,rich in organic matter. These bricksare vastlydifferentfromthe redandyellowones of later phases.A seriesof chamberswithan associatedcourt-yardand corridorswas found connectingall four areas of Field VIA from Phase4e (the earliestEB phase).Largequantitiesof late EB II potterywerefoundin this phase.Hesi'sgrowthin the late EB II andearlyEB III periodsmay have beendue to climatic changein the south,with the resultantdessicationof the land, forcingpopulationsto move northto morefertilelands.Arad, for example,was abandonedat the end of the EB period,and Hesi appearsto have becomea regionalagriculturalcenterin A Greek lekythos imported to Judah during the Persian this time. period found at Tell el Hesi in July 1981. Occupationallayers from Phases4d through4a were exposedalonga 37.0 m expanseof the EBcitywall. It was builtin close connectionto a very hard, compactedglacis which apparentlyextendedfor some 85.0 m acrossthe southernside of the site andthenmadethe bendaroundthe duneto the east and north.In effect, the glacis addeda solid limestonelayerto the easternand southernsides of the site whichwas imperviousto waterand, therefore,to erosion. EB Hesi was a large, populouscity whichmadeits livelihood herdinganimalsand growingemmerwheat.These commodities,raisedlocally, becamethe basis for tradewith other places, probablyincludingJerichoand Bab edh-Dhrato the east. Products,includinggrapes,fish, pomegranates,pistachio, basalt,and diabase(for craftingquerns,grinders,bowls,etc.), are not found in the Wadi Hesi and had to be imported. Excavationin Field V in 1981centereduponthe removal of MuslimburialsfromStratumII. The burialswereexcavated by a specializedburialteam. Most of the burialsconformedto characteristicstypicalof other Hesi bedouinburials,i.e., lying in the groundin attitudesresemblingsleep,facingtowardMecca, with the usual assortmentof Muslimglass beads, metal braceletsand rings,and mother-of-pearl pendants.An unusual solid metal ball, probably a false eye, was also found. Osteologicalstudiesindicatethat the life expectancyof the resident bedouin populationswas low; only 9 of 100 persons probablylived beyondage thirty-five. Beneaththe burialsin FieldV, some fleetingglimpsesinto the EB levelwerehad. An ovenwas foundin the ashoutsidethe city wall-the firstevidenceof occupationoutsidethe EB wall. Also, an interestinganimal figurine,with a hole in it, was found;it was most likely used as an amulet. Preliminarysurveyingin the Wadi Hesi located remains from the Iron I/Late Bronze,MiddleBronzeI, EarlyBronze, Chalcolithic,andPaleolithicperiods.Futuresurveyingwillseek to determinethe settlementpatternsfor the locale in the Iron II, IronI, and Late Bronzeperiodsspecifically.It is hopedthat landuse and settlementpatternswill be betterunderstoodas a resultof this effort. Work in 1981-82 will seek to complete publicationof Phase I of the expedition'sfindsand to digestthe materialunearthedin the 1981 season. In 1983 a concludingseason for

into the side of the acropolis'slope proceeded,as did construction of the first phase (Zone A) of the Field III wall system. This wall was 6.20 m wideand was supportedby pierslaid into the hill to the north.The wall was apparentlyinadequate,and ZonesB andC wereadded,witha seriesof terracesbuiltupthe slope of the tell. This was followedby the chamber/fillsystem with connectingwalls raisingthe heightof the tell, creatinga solidbase for the upperpartof the "ManassahWall"of Petrie. The areacoveredatop the tell was 16.0m x 18.5m. On top, the outer wall on threesides was of casemateconstruction,with a singlewallon the northside only.The wholestructureservedto heightenthe tell and providea foundationand flat surfacefor the StratumVIIc buildingphase. The upperwall atop the acropolisappearsto have served defensivepurposes;it is still well preservedin the erodedwadi face.The lowerwall, in FieldIII, functionedto shoreup the tell in the face of wintererosion, but probablyalso servedsome defensive purpose, modelled on the double-wallsystem of Lachish in the Iron II period. Hesi may have served as a militaryheadquartersin the 8th century,guardingthe southwesternapproachesto the regionalcapitalof Lachish.No attack from Hesi would have stoppeda force in their approach to Lachish,but signal fires from the site could have warned of an enemy'sadvance.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

125

Phase II will completethe study of the Iron II construction Dwight P. Lanmon,Directorof the CorningMuseumof phase (VIId), date the EB city wall and glacis system, and Glass and Conferencecoordinator,has outlined the six-day preparefor possiblework on the Iron I and LB levels on the scheduleas follows:7 and 8 June,the MetropolitanMuseumof tell's acropolisin anticipatedfutureseasons. Art, New York City;9 and 10 June, the CorningMuseumof Glass, CorningNY; 11 and 12 June, the Toledo Museumof John Wilson Betlyon Art, Toledo, OH. Thereis also an optional Post-Conference Smith College tourlastingsix daysto visit museumsbetweenNew YorkCity Northampton,MA and Norfolk,VA. Conferencehighlightsinclude reports by leading glass scholarson the latestarcheologicaland scientificdiscoveriesin InternationalGlassConferenceScheduledin U.S. the field of glassmakingand glass history. Also, Conference An InternationalGlass Conferencewill be held in the U.S. 7 participantswill have the opportunityto see some of the through12 June 1982.Workingsessionsand relatedactivities greatestglass collectionsin the world,as well as to tour the are scheduledin New York City, Corning,NY, and Toledo, stainedglassexhibitat The Cloisters,New YorkCity,and the OH. cameo glassexhibitionat the CorningMuseumof Glass. The Conferenceis beingsponsoredjointlyby the Corning Additional informationabout the Conferencecan be Museumof Glass,the MetropolitanMuseumof Art, and the obtainedby writingthe CorningMuseumof Glass,Corning, ToledoMuseumof Art.Itis expectedto attractworldwideglass NY 14830. scholars,collectors,and dealers interestedin the historical, archeological,artistic,and museologicalstudyof glassas well ClareM. Davis as its technologyand conservation. The CorningMuseumof Glass

Book. Reviews Judges:A Commentary,by J. AlbertoSoggin. Translatedby in the scholar)and ethicalinsensitivity(similarlyambiguous). JohnBowden.TheOld TestamentLibrary.Philadelphia:West- For example,in the thoroughlyoffensive(unlessit is intentionminster,1981.pp. 305. ally comic)storyof the Leviteandhis concubine(Judges19),it is only the local hell-raisers(and not the protectivehost who To the readerwho is alreadyfamiliarwithworksby Professor magnanimouslyoffered to buy them off with his own virgin Soggin, this will be a welcome additionto the commentary daughter;nor the Levitewho in fact boughtthem off with his bookshelf. Soggin is justly famous for his irenic ability to concubine)who are viewednegativelyby Soggin. On Soggin's assimilate insights and mediate rival claims of competing reading,the last chapterof Judgesactuallyviewsthe expedition scholarlystorm-centers.Unquestionablyone of the greatest to Jabesh-gilead(save all the virgins!)and the Shiloh caper valuesof thisbookwillbe bibliographical; Sogginweavesan in- (eachone seizeone!),whichare obviously"parallelattemptsto tricate tapestry of European,American, Israeli, and South providewomen,"as necessaryandcommendableactionsbythe African scholarshipon the emergenceof early Israel, with assembly.We call this the problemof eclectic ethic. many provocativeinsightsof his own workedinto the fabric. On the positiveside, we may note that Soggin'spluperfect The introductionis compact;thirteenpagesmust be con- translationin 21:1 ("had sworn")balancesredactionallyand finedto bareessentials.Curiouslyonly one page is devotedto lendslegitimacyto similarrenderings,as we have proposedin the processof redaction,but nearlysix full pagesare given to 1:1 ("Israeliteshad asked"),2:6 ("Joshuahad discharged"), the book'schronology.The volumeincludesno maps,indexes, and 2:8 ("Joshuahaddied"),evenin the absenceof disjunctive generalchronology,or otheraids to reading,whichwill unfor- syntax (Boling 1975:50-54, 71-72). tunatelylimit the audiencewhich will find it useful, that is, One can only lamentthat Soggindid not devoteas much primarilythe communityof professionalscholars.Onthe ques- time and effort to freshexplorationof structuralintegrityand tion of resourcesand redaction, Soggin's most prominent literarysensitivitiesas he did to the secondaryliterature.For authorityis W. Richter. example,it is not clear what is meantby the assertionabout Soggin's strongestsuit, admirablyreflectinghis interest Judges4 (prose)and 5 (poetry)and how "thetwo texts should and training,is the historyof tradition,as amplydemonstrated be read:they are not historybut epic"(p. 68). Soggindoes not whereverthe materialis especiallysusceptibleto suchanalysis. get into the questionof epic as a possiblecarrierof historical Thus, for example, a special seven-page introductionto memory,but he frequentlyassumesit, as in the verynextparaGideon/Jerubbaalunravelsthe compositenessof Judges 6-8 graph, where Judges 5 is regardedas entirely reliable for andaddressesa varietyof relatedquestionsbeforepresentingto locating the scene of the battle. Later, he also observesthat the reader a translationof the text and descriptionof its "Deborahis a judgein the forensicsenseof the termbeforebeproblems. Unfortunately,such (dis)organizationin a com- ing calledto be a judgeon the politicalandreligiousplane,and mentaryis at leastdistractingif not disorienting;it is especially duringthe exerciseof the latter office there is no sign of the a problemin the absenceof indexesfor help in trackingsuch former"(p. 71). It thereforeseems that Judges4-5 are "epic" analysiselsewherein the book. only whenSogginwantsto challengethe historicityof a point. To any readerof the book who is not alreadysomewhat Morever,he seems to limit "history"to what gets written familiarwithcriticalstudyandthe issuesat stake,probablythe (althoughhe clearlyknowsbetter),whichis theAchillesheelof greatestchallengewill be its strictadherenceto a descriptiveap- a rigoroustraditions-history method. At the sametime, Soggin'sworkis generallywellinformed proachwhichcreatesa seriousmisimpression(knowingSoggin as we do) of humorlesstheologicalnaivete(eitherin thetextsor by the pellmellpace of recent excavationsand archeological

126

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

surveys,with all theirimportfor topographicalstudies.Bethel, Soggin is now convinced,was at Beitin.The importantGilgal sanctuarywas mostprobablyat Kh. el-Mefjir,butpossibly"in the context of the sanctuaryof Bethel"(LXX),whichis an odd way of puttingit. For Debir,however,the readermustactually followthe referenceto Soggin'searliertreatmentin hisJoshua commentary,where he discusses three alternativeswithout committinghimself(Soggin 1972).Thisseemsunnecessarynow that the case for Kh. Rabudhas beenso thoroughlycanvassed. Archeology,however,has for Soggin mainly illustrative value. For example,in dealingwith the accountof Abimelech (Judges9), Soggin works from an assumednarrativeunity; there are two deities (Baal-Berithand El-Berith)and two temple-towns(Shechem and Migdal-Shechem).The theory owes at least a rebuttalto L. E. Toombs who managedto comprehendthe data in terms of Upper City (Temenos)and LowerCity (G. E. Wright1965:128).Beyondthis, the question is where,in the broadShechemplain,afterthe Shechemsurvey (Campbell1968),the placecalledMigdal-Shechemmighthave beenlocatedduringthe transitionfromthe LateBrongeAge to IronI (late 13th-early12thcenturies).In any case, the sceneof Gaal's conversationwith Zebul (9:35-38)was most likely the East Gate (contraSogginwho alone,to our knowledge,calls it the "South"Gate), and not the NorthwestGate, from which one couldlook out directlyat Mt. Ebal(contraSoggin)andless directly at Mt. Gerizim (thus normallyspelled in this commentary, but alternating with Garizim). While it is archeologicallypossibleto arguethat the NorthwestGate was in use duringthe Late BronzeAge, this setting for the conversationseems to be ruled out by the survey (see a forthcoming essay by E. F. Campbell).Actuallythe entirediscussion maybe academicif the location"pethahthe city gate"can be anywherefrom "inside"to "out in front"to "on top of." Soggingiveslittle spaceto the socialworldof earlyIsrael, continuingto asserta dualityof "immigrants"in largenumbers and an "autochthonous"population. Failing to grasp the revolutionarycharacterof Israel,Soggin missesthe tragedyof Abimelech'sdual allegiance,tryingto be botha city-stateking and commanderof the leaguemilitia.In the lattercapacity,do we assumethat Abimelechwaged"holywar?"Sogginnowhere gives a sustainedtreatmentof what this key phrase means (alwayswith some additionalnuanceimplied,we suppose,by puttingit in quotationmarks).How, if so, was sacralwarfarein Israeldifferentfromwarfareas wagedby the nations?Another scholarlyconstructwhichmay or may not havelastingvalidity, butwhichwill meannothingto the uninitiatedwhenit is merely broughtin unexplainedso as to get on to the next sentence,is that of the "personalunionbetweenIsraeland Judah."Union in what person?When?For how long? By this time it should be clear that many of our queries might well have been raisedby a good copy editor. Some additionalqueriesand scatteredcomplaints:Why translatelammishpat"forjudgement"but switchto "Justice" (again an unexplainednuanceimpliedby quotationmarks)in the note? Do Deut 19:21, Lev 24:12, and Exod 2:23 really "codify" the vendetta(privateblood feud)?Or did Yahwist policyintendratherto curtailthe bloodfeudby the ruleof law and, ideally, removeit entirelyfrom the humanscene (Deut 32:35-43)?Is it clear that "chariotsof iron" means "covered and armed with iron" (exceedinglyheavy!)?Why not "held togetherwithironnails and fittings,"if the expressionis not in fact figurative? In Soggin'stranslationof 4:3 we read about "Harosheth, the placeof the 'pagans.'" Soggin providessubstantialdiscussion of the proposedlocationbutno attemptto justifythe translationandno explanationof howthe singlequotemarksqualify the sense of pagan.

After a judiciousdiscussionof the Jabin-identityproblem (Judges4), althoughit is not clear on what basis one can say that the title "King of Canaan"never existed (italics mine), Sogginsubstitutes"all the Canaanites"for MT "Jabin,kingof Canaan"in the final clause of 4:24, withoutexplanation. "Ministry"wouldseemto be an overlyprecisewordto use in referenceto the activityof the so-calledminorjudges. In 8:6 the translation"Is the power of (Heb. ha-kaph) Zebahand Zalmunnahalreadyin your hands(Heb. yadeka)" assignsfigurativesense to the wrongwordfor "hand"and incorrectlypluralizesthe otherone. The identicalquestionin 8:15 is translatedwith absolutelyno reflectionof ha-kaph! The usage in 4:17, "house of hbr the Kenite,"makes it prettyclearthathbris understoodby the narratoras a personal name (much as we might preferto have it a common noun, "group,"with Soggin). In responseto a footnote,referringto the reviewer,on the "Bedouin"characterof the Midianites,we must plead: not guilty. But can one simplymakean end runaroundthe camels in 6:5, 7:12, 8:21, and 8:26? The renderingof perazon as "leadingclass" (sic!) in 5:7 may be somehowrelatedto Soggin'slate datingof the Song of Deborah,betweenthe 10th and 8th centuriesby comparison withthe poorlyunderstoodGezerCalendar(an unusuallysmall linguisticsamplefor suchdeduction).By that time, to be sure, Israelitesociety had become thoroughlyrestratified. Whilethe statusof the victimin Judges19 is consistently set forthin the narrative(concubine),it is disconcertingto have Sogginfluctuatingwithoutexplanationandaccordingto no discerniblepatternbetween"concubine"and"wife."Whileagreeing fully with Emerson that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblinof little minds,we may surelycontinueto hold out for a reasonableconsistencythat does not totallydisengagethe readerfrom the original. Whatwe miss most in the commentaryis the questof experience.How is it helpfulto knowaboutthe Song of Deborah that "Israelitefaith felt it necessaryto providethis originally secularsongwitha liturgicalandtheologicalframework"(Soggin providesno discussionof Hebrewpoetryper se-metrical theories, mythic configurations,or relationships between Canaaniteformand Israelitecontent)withoutaskingaboutthe experientialgenesisof such a poem? Much of the foregoingwill be recognizedas continuing conversationwith a respectedcolleague.Soggin makes many good points, and often enoughwe must go back to the work bench ourselves.With many of our objections,however,the buck need not be passedany fartherthan the publisher.It is verydisappointingthat a majorpressshouldgive suchslipshod treatmentto workby a continentalscholarof Soggin'sstature. RobertG. Boling McCormickTheologicalSeminary

Bibliography Boling,R. G. 1975 Judges.AnchorBible6A. GardenCity, NY: Doubleday. Campbell,E. F., Jr. "The ShechemArea Survey."BASOR 190(April, 1968): 1968 19-41. Soggin, J. A. 1972 Joshua.The Old TestamentLibrary.Philadelphia:Westminster. Wright,G. E. 1965 Shechem:The Biographyof a BiblicalCity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING1982

127

The Origins of History, by Herbert Butterfield. 252 pp. New York: Basic Books, 1981. $20.95 In his last years the great Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield became concerned about the origins of the discipline to which he had contributed such major works as The Origins of Modern Science and The Whig Interpretation of History. After his death in 1979 a manuscript remained, the first five chapters of which had been fairly thoroughly revised, the last three in less structured form. The ex-diplomat Alan Watson, his close friend, took on the labor of producing a book out of these materials. Watson himself reports that in Butterfield's mind the key question "was the part attributed to God in the narration of human events," leading to the problem "how, once in, was he finally got out again?" Butterfield observes that any society will be "very constricted" unless it sees itself as the product of its history. These are major, powerful themes which may be recommended to someone's earnest attention, for in his text Butterfield has scarcely used them. In relation to the Hebrews, whose historiography he praises highly, he does find "a people not only supremely conscious of the past but possibly more obsessed with history than any other nation that has ever existed. The very key to its whole development seems to have been the power of its historical memory." But then follows a conventional account of the successive strands of Hebrew historical thought. His survey of Greek historical writing also is very weak; the religious convictions of Herodotus, which are vital to an understanding of the Father of History, are not even mentioned. Instead, in the first two chapters Butterfield rummages about in the literature of the early Near East and finds an effort to put contemporary achievements of kings and nobles on record before the gods; had he kept in mind the terse remark of Collingwood (Idea of History) that the writer of such a report "was not writing history, he was writing religion," his analysis would have been much sharpened. After chapters on the Hebrews and Greeks, Butterfield takes up the Chinese tradition, the establishment of Christian historiography, the development of historical criticism, and the secularization of history; in these later chapters he often simply summarizes the Shoo King, Eusebius, Augustine, Bossuet, and others. The cultivated layman may find Butterfield's clear prose interesting at points; the professional reader will be disturbed repeatedly by the author's reliance on older works and his repetition of exploded views (though since there are no footnotes his sources are not always clear). He does not know Pritchard on ancient Near Eastern texts, Boman's comparison of Hebrew and Greek thought, Burton Watson's study of Ssuma Chien, and much else; the bibliography prepared from his note cards is bizarre and actually does not include some authors whom he cites in his text. Factually as well, the book is to be used with care. Homer is dated to the 9th century; the equation of Achchiyawa and Achaeans, now seriously questioned, is accepted; Greek historians viewed time cyclically and Christians as a linear progression (a view which confuses philosophical and historical schemata as I tried to show in History and Theory, 1966). Recently I had occasion to review Toynbee's last book, which likewise scarcely deserved publication. Perhaps we should leave untouched the Nachlass of great men; but in that case we should not have Virgil's Aeneid, which the dying poet ordered to be burned. Chester G. Starr The University of Michigan

128

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SPRING

1982

Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, ed. A vraham Biran.182pp. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981. $17.60. In Jerusalem, 14-16 March 1977, a colloquium on temples and high places in biblical times was held in honor of the centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. This volume records the lectures and discussions (transcribed selectively from tapes), providing summaries when scholars did not turn in their manuscripts. Many of the latter are excavation reports which have been published elsewhere. There are twentyfour plates and many drawings. The book is attractively printed. There is no index. The organizers have cast their net wide both for topics and for participants. The earliest period studied is the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age by Ruth Amiran, who finds more continuities than expected between Chalcolithic and EB I and II, and between the former and Uruk culture. The latest period studied is from the 5th to the 8th centuries C.E.in reports on a church in the Negev and a synagogue in Beth Shean by Yoram Tsafrir and Fanny Vitto, respectively. The following is a catalog of the addresses that are more than summaries: Benjamin Mazar, "YHWH Came Out from Sinai"; Richard D. Barnett, "Bringing the God into the Temple"; D. N. Freedman, "Temple without Hands"; Menahem Haran, "Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible"; Doro Levi, "Features and Continuity of Cretan Peak Cults"; Ruth Amiran, "Some Observations on Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Sanctuaries and Religion"; Spyridon lakovidis, "A Peak Sanctuary in Bronze Age Thera"; Kurt Bittel, "Hittite Temples and High Places in Anatolia and North Syria"; Moshe Dothan, "Sanctuaries along the Coast of Canaan in the MB Period: Nahariyah"; Vassos Karageorghis, "The Sacred Area of Kition"; Trude Dothan, "The High Place of Athienou in Cyprus"; Machteld J. Mellink, "Temples and High Places in Phrygia"; Vronway Hankey, "Imported Vessels of the Late Bronze Age at High Places"; David Stronach, "Notes on Median and Early Achaemenian Religious Monuments"; Ekrem Akurgal, "Aramaean and Phoenician Stylistic and Iconographic Elements in Neo-Hittite Art"; Avraham Biran, " 'To the God who is in Dan' "; Frank M. Cross, "The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research." It is clear that mountains and high places were important religiously along the eastern Mediterranean where the mountain was an imposing element of the landscape. The Bible and the Ugaritic texts indicate the sacrality of these heights. It is convenient to have brought together in one volume material from such a wide area and from such distinguished scholars working at first hand with their materials. All too often such phenomena of religion are dealt with by enthusiasts eager to draw the data into syntheses prematurely. Here one will find no syntheses, only a massive amount of disparate data. The organizers and the contributors are to be congratulated. The book is an impressive collection. Richard J. Clifford Weston School of Theology